It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can You Laymen Handle the Masonic Truth?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ickesright
of all the people who get involved with freemasonry, maybe 5 percent progress past the 32nd and 33rd degrees, to ascertain the true hidden knowledge.


Did you just make that statistic up? Or get it from one of Icke's books, where I am sure he also did not cite the source?

I notice that as time passes, the conspiracy theorists keep arching up the degree you have to be "in the know" about. In the older masonic literature, they claim only people above the 29th degree know what is "really" going on. Now its only the 32nd and 33rd. I suspect that the conspiracy theorists keep running into more and more "high degree" masons that completely refute them so they keep having to bump up the numbers. Pretty soon, only 33rd degrees will be in the know about our evil doings.


Originally posted by ickesright
one only becomes privy to this "knowledge", if you are bloodline. if you don't know what the bloodline is, refer to david icke.


And yet, while David Icke has never been a mason, somehow he knows all about these high level mason secrets. How can this be?


Originally posted by ickesright
do yourself a favor bro, and read david ickes' books.


Only when I want a good laugh.




posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


First, I am quite impressed by your posts. Nice work.

To answer your question, which is where do I fall on Masonry, I have to say that first, I am not a Mason. My father was. This limits my direct knowledge of how Masonry has managed to act as a vehicle for this truth to some degree. Actually, even were I a Mason I would still be limited, not being in contact with ALL Masons.

My father was a good man. He was not particularly astute when it came to these mystic "truths." Nor was I during his life, to be honest, but in looking back, Masonry did not convey these truths to him. He possessed to some degree the character on his own, but he took it only so far. Masonry, for him, was a brotherhood. A very practical thing. He used it once to get me released from police custody for a minor offense (fighting) using his magic handshake and show of ring to a policeman who was also a Mason. Other of his "brothers" had much less the nature than he did. So, I am aware that membership to Masonry itself is not the whole thing.

I do think Masonry contains this truth in its writings. (The ones I have read.) And I do think that there are Masons that are aware of this truth, though my guess, (and it is only a guess) that this number is very, very small. Why do I say this? Because the number of all humans who has even an inkling about this mystic truth is very, very small. (Though quite a few have the character, without the "knowledge") I have talked to lamas from Tibet, and found bureaucrats, I have spoken to a highly thought of Guru from India, and found a dabbler who was captured by his own importance. It is a difficult thing, even for those who have seen this truth to remain in it, and not get swept away by the mind.

My personal thinking on "why Masonry" was ever a vehicle for this truth is this;

Masonry was once made up of actual masons. Stone workers, (or any builder who works with substance, the harder the substance the better) has to see the world in a certain, very "realistic" way. Anything can be made to work in a plan, on paper. (or the mind, for that matter) It is a particular art to making this plan translate to substance. It requires both will, and surrender. In the world, # happens. Some things can be changed, altered, bent to the will, and others require that the individual bend to them, work with them, mold and shape their expectations to the thing itself.

Depending on your understanding of the Tao, (which I choose because it is the easiest to reference quickly and succinctly) one may be able to see that this itself is very Taoist. (It is also in line with the other mystic traditions, but less clearly in some writings.)

www.chinapage.com...


51. Nurture
The Way bears all things;
Harmony nurtures them;
Nature shapes them;
Use completes them.

Each follows the Way and honours harmony,
Not by law,
But by being.

The Way bears, nurtures, shapes, completes,
Shelters, comforts, and makes a home for them.

Bearing without possessing,
Nurturing without taming,
Shaping without forcing,
This is harmony.


The idea of a pre-determined "plan" being enforced on Nature (the way construction is done now) was not used in building at least some of the sacred temples of the ancient Greeks. Examples of this can be found here, from the Smithsonian magazine, since it relates directly to masonry;

www.smithsonianmag.com...

I did not first see this example of the "truth" of how to live/work with "What is" in ancient building, but rather in the writings of Plato. (Though I had been primed to see it by other things, including my own physical trade, I am an industrial plumber, power plants and the like)

So, in my opinion only, Masonry as a club, with people who do not have this practical experience of allowing "what is" to direct ones work, actions, etc., (actual Masons or other builders who work with the manifest) is lacking something. Not even all builders have this understanding that the use of force is undesirable. The writings are important, but alone, they are insufficient. One first has to have the experience and the eyes to see the underlying truth and message. Not all people do, and the more abstract we become, the more divorced from physical reality or "Nature" the less of us that do.

As I said in an earlier post, this loss of understanding is not limited to Masonry, but to virtually all traditions where this sacred message exists. We preserved the words, the ceremonies, the traditions, but for many people the ability to understand them has been swept aside by another way of viewing the world. One in which conquest/force/will is the answer. For those who are able to have the understanding, (which as an intellectual exercise is not sufficient either) many of us lack the tranquility of mind to BE that on a consistent basis.

I am not claiming that my understanding is perfect, BTW, or that I am the bearer of truth and light. I see some things, and I miss others. By the Tao de Chings description of a "Great Sage," I miss the mark by a long shot, and I know it. (I would not be the ideal Philosopher King of Plato, either, I definitely lack a consistent tranquility of mind among other things) I see a little more than some, and less than others. This is just my own attempt to explain why I said what I said in answer to your question.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Fair enough, and thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. (And by the way, is there a particular translation of the Tao de Ching that you recommend? I've seen a few and been meaning to buy one, but wasn't sure if a mass produced Barnes & Noble imprint would have the same beauty as, well, anything else.)

I'll agree that 90% or more of Masons probably don't get "it". But that's OK. The really curious thing is that there are members who don't have any particular esoteric bent, yet can recite the ritual perfectly, so the tradition can continue unbroken for those who seek to delve deeper.



posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Grafilthy
True, but is the bible not a work of fiction?
One step at a time. The first step is to get the Bible-thumpers to realize that half of what they believe isn't actually IN the bible.


I think one can be a Christian and not a Bible-thumper. One can even be a Christian and a Freemason
.

One can even be a Bible-thumper (actually it's Bible Basher where I come from
) and a freemason. It all depends which bits of the Bible you Bash, how hard you Bash them and at what point you know when its time to to stop Bashing and go put the kettle on or something.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


I dont think any one specific translation of the Tao de Ching is obejectively better than any other. I like the one I linked to, but in truth, the one that rings bells for YOU is the right one for you to read. Any translation of any sacred text that doesnt "speak to you" isnt FOR you, in my opinion. Each of us is primed to hear what we need to hear next. Even in my re-reads of things I have read many times, nuances become more clear, more apparent. We are all, (also in my opinion) of equal potential for "enlightenment." It is a matter of trusting yourself, or more accurately your Self, that higher bit of you that is your link to the Divine, to guide you. Any text that speaks to you has something for you. The ones that are meaningless to you may have something for you too, but perhaps just not yet.

I think the problem is we trust ourselves so little that we try to follow in the exact footsteps of others who seem a little more enlightened than we, (whether that is true or not) when what we need to do is move in their general direction choosing our OWN steps, that work for us. (Again, this relates to that not forcing some pre-determined plan on "what is" but instead conforming ourselves to "what is" including "what we are.") The sacred writings are there to help, but they cannot impart understanding by force. Flowing into them, allowing synchronicity and your own discernment to guide you, is a much better method (in my opinion) to follow the path YOUR soul/awareness/higher Self needs to come to that understanding.

I think it is cool too that some of the Sacred writings have been preserved by those who did not understand them at all. One "set" of sacred writings has been preserved virtually intact because very few of those preserving them realized that they ARE sacred (mystic) texts. These are the writings of Plato. And Plato designed them that way. He intended for them to mean one thing to one sort of character, and something else to another sort of character. He buried the message deliberately in his work. He did not believe that these mystic truths could be transmitted without grievous errors in understanding if the truths were written directly, explicitly. He felt any writer who attempted to do so did not understand them at all.

classics.mit.edu...


Thus much at least, I can say about all writers, past or future, who say they know the things to which I devote myself, whether by hearing the teaching of me or of others, or by their own discoveries-that according to my view it is not possible for them to have any real skill in the matter. There neither is nor ever will be a treatise of mine on the subject. For it does not admit of exposition like other branches of knowledge; but after much converse about the matter itself and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself. Yet this much I know-that if the things were written or put into words, it would be done best by me, and that, if they were written badly, I should be the person most pained. Again, if they had appeared to me to admit adequately of writing and exposition, what task in life could I have performed nobler than this, to write what is of great service to mankind and to bring the nature of things into the light for all to see? But I do not think it a good thing for men that there should be a disquisition, as it is called, on this topic-except for some few, who are able with a little teaching to find it out for themselves. As for the rest, it would fill some of them quite illogically with a mistaken feeling of contempt, and others with lofty and vain-glorious expectations, as though they had learnt something high and mighty.


Plato's dialogs are an attempt to convey these mysteries to those who needed a little more guidance than those who might be able to get it from a direct exposition. Yet countless scholars who have devoted their lives to these texts have missed that aspect entirely. (Not all have, though) Like those Masons you mention, regardless of their getting the message or not, his body of work has been preserved by them beautifully. Perhaps the fact they did not realize what they were preserving actually helped ensure their survival. Certainly had the early Church leaders understood what they were they would have been destroyed along with the untold number of other sacred writings.

Edit to add; That excerpt from and link to is "The Seventh Letter," of Plato.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by JoshNorton
 

I think the problem is we trust ourselves so little that we try to follow in the exact footsteps of others who seem a little more enlightened than we, (whether that is true or not) when what we need to do is move in their general direction choosing our OWN steps, that work for us. (Again, this relates to that not forcing some pre-determined plan on "what is" but instead conforming ourselves to "what is" including "what we are.") The sacred writings are there to help, but they cannot impart understanding by force. Flowing into them, allowing synchronicity and your own discernment to guide you, is a much better method (in my opinion) to follow the path YOUR soul/awareness/higher Self needs to come to that understanding.
[edit on 16-7-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]


I am in agreement with you. Freemasonry is often thought of as a great repository of secret knowledge, this is not true. Freemasonry is just a push to a person to start their personal journey to enlightenment. It does not so much as to show the light as it directs the member to seek light. light in this case being personal truths. Truth is different for each person. Each of us are the product of our parents and what we have learned and done in our lives. Thus Freemasonry does not dictate what and how a member should believe. The requirement that the member believes in a supreme being is in mine opinion needed, if the member is ever going to be opened to themselves. I believe to be able to learn one must first be humble. Thus set oneself beneath something that is greater. When our Ego is too great we can not learn



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I think these are great points.

It seems to me that a lot of the mystical paths (and masonry) have a lot of things in common. Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems like they all:

- Seek enlightenment
- Teach through personal experience
- Require the seeker to come of his or her own will
- Value honesty, patience, charity, etc.

Does this sound right? Is it possible that we are all looking for the same thing in the end?



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost in the midwest
I believe to be able to learn one must first be humble. Thus set oneself beneath something that is greater. When our Ego is too great we can not learn


I agree. Thats why I think the "surrender" aspect of working with difficult material, (Stone, mountains, etc) was so helpful in being a vehicle for the transmission of this sacred truth.

You work with stone, you shape it, and its natural qualities in many cases dictate what you do to shape it, or how it can be shaped, where it will be placed, etc.

The Ego, as you point out, (I call it mind, identity, or will also) is that bit of us that says, "Me, MY way, what I want." It is that aspect of us (either collectively or individually) that tries to impose itself and its will upon everything and everyone. Its vision of what it wants is often so overwhelmingly strong that it causes "blindness" (or inability to learn as you say) because it will only accept what it wishes to see, and ignores other things that "are" but do not further its own will/storyline.

Ultimately, that is why the whole surrender/acceptance/love/humble thing is at the heart of all the sacred traditions. The will or mind or ego doesnt disappear, it isnt done away with, it is meant to be there. It is just meant to be shaped and tempered by Nature or God or the Divine. (However one wishes to call it) It is meant to conform itself harmoniously with the greater will of the Divine. (or nature or God) Our individual will is part of the Divine will, but it isnt meant to act in opposition to it, but rather with it. We are meant to be the conduit through which Divine will expresses, not in constant struggle to impose the egoic or individual will while snubbing our noses at the Divine dictate of "what is."

In my view of the Divine this is not an "us" being bullied about by some God, loving or demanding or otherwise, in my view, we are all of us imbued with the Divine itself. We are not individually, egoically "Gods," but we are inseparable from the Divine. We are aspects of it. As I see it, fighting with the Divine dictate, or struggling against "what is," fails first and foremost because it is a struggle against your own highest Self. The Divine within you. The fight you are surest to lose, by definition, is the one you have with your own Self.

Very nice post and thoughts, btw.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fulcrum29


Thanks for the reply.
Yes just from the few threads I read on here and my own research on the internet I was able to ascertain that 32 is indeed the highest degree in Scottish Rite, being called Knight of St Andrew (KoSA) apparently in some if not all of the 'districts/jurisidictions'.


Just a brief correction: the 33° is the highest degree of the Rite. It is in fact technically called "the 33rd and Last Degree". It is indeed honorary in nature, as it makes the recipient an honorary member of the Supreme Council, but it is nevertheless an actual degree, and the highest of the Rite.

The degree of Knight of St. Andrew is actually the 29°. The 32° is called, in the Southern Jurisdiction, Master of the Royal Secret. In the N.J., it is called Prince of the Royal Secret.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I don't want to derail, but I just wanted to ask a question. Last night at lodge I noticed an old diagram on the wall that referred to 'Active' 33d and 'Honorary' 33d.

What's the deal with that?

Thanks!



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I don't want to derail, but I just wanted to ask a question. Last night at lodge I noticed an old diagram on the wall that referred to 'Active' 33d and 'Honorary' 33d.

What's the deal with that?

Thanks!
A good description is given here:

The purple cap denotes a 33° Sovereign Grand Inspector General and an active member of the Supreme Council. This is the title of an Active Member of The Supreme Council. There is only one Active Member for any one Orient (state, territory, or country). He is the highest ranking officer of the Rite within his jurisdiction, and, in relation to the Rite, his powers are similar to those of a Grand Master of the Symbolic Craft subject, however, to The Supreme Council and the Sovereign Grand Commander.


So Active denotes the top representative of each state who represents that state in the meetings of the Supreme Council, while the Honorary members serve as the pool from which those representatives are chosen. It is my understanding that in recent years the meeting of the Supreme Council has been open to the public, to the point that some white cap 33° members couldn't get in because the room was so full of curious non-Masons. (Of course, the purple caps had reserved seats...
)



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Ahhh... ok that makes sense.

Thanks!



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


I think you are making a very good point, we are all on the same path. The core truth of all traditions is far more similar than different. (once you strip away time, culture and language differences)

I would phrase your points a little differently, not to nitpick but because this is more in line with what I hear and see in the traditions. Your points are not wrong, just mildly different in some small sense. I would phrase your points
as;

1) Be open to enlightenment. Sometimes you dont need to seek it, it is right there in front of you, but not always, sometimes movement is required. It isnt always what and where you think it will be, so rather than look for "it," ask to be able to see whatever you need to see. Look with broad eyes, open and as non-judgmental as you can manage.

2) Rather than "teach" which assumes that you "know," share. Share what you have learned, because even your mistakes may help someone else avoid the same pitfalls. Share knowing that your way isnt the only way, just the way you got there.

3) Absolutely. Because surrender is important we all must choose when and where we decide to become open. Also, there is no "one right way" and that person not open to your way may be moving down the right way for them.

4) Again, absolutely. Because honesty patience, charity, kindness, etc., are manifest ways of honoring the divine within ourselves and all others.


We "love thy neighbor as thyself" because in a very fundamental way, there is no separation between either of us and the Divine. And since we are all connected to the Divine or God, we are also all connected to each other. No one is less important. No one has less of a chance for enlightenment. Caring for, and honoring one another and assisting in whatever way we can (without pushing misguided help down their throats, sometimes the best thing we can do is to let them sort it out on their own) is important because the success of anyone of us contributes to the success of us all. Not material success, mind you, but the success of our Selves or our souls if you will, in our own journey to greater enlightenment.

If you facilitate the enlightenment of another, (rather than only focus on your own) you not only by definition move to a more enlightened place, (because you recognize the connection between us all) you also add to the net "light" in the world by both shining your own light brighter and by facilitating their shining brighter as well.

Enlightenment isnt a competition, it is for the good and benefit of all people, things, all that is. Which is why anyone who guards some mystic "secret" jealously has no secret worth hearing. It doesnt matter who among us becomes more enlightened. And enlightenment isnt a one time event. You dont get "there" and its all done. We all shine relatively more or less brightly as we move towards or away from the Divine. No one is so enlightened that they cannot shine brighter, and no one is so "dark" that they cannot shine as brightly as a Buddha or Christ.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Enlightenment isnt a competition, it is for the good and benefit of all people, things, all that is. Which is why anyone who guards some mystic "secret" jealously has no secret worth hearing. It doesnt matter who among us becomes more enlightened. And enlightenment isnt a one time event. You dont get "there" and its all done. We all shine relatively more or less brightly as we move towards or away from the Divine. No one is so enlightened that they cannot shine brighter, and no one is so "dark" that they cannot shine as brightly as a Buddha or Christ.


You should nit pick to your hearts content.


Excellent post, many nails hit and for me, at least, driven home.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I think these are some excellent points. It seems like a lot of people get frustrated because they are led to believe they need secret words, keys or rituals to get there.

For myself, I know there is a long way to go. Every once in a while I will catch a brief glimpse but then daily life distracts me and I may go months or years before I pick up the search again.

In many ways I feel like it is just 'right here' in front of me but I just can't quite seem to get 'there'.

I don't know if that makes any sense or if it's just a bunch of mystical mumbo-jumbo but deep down it feels like we are all headed there eventually we just need to find the path (or no path) that works.

OK now I am confusing even myself, but that was an excellent explanation you gave.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


For myself, I know there is a long way to go. Every once in a while I will catch a brief glimpse but then daily life distracts me and I may go months or years before I pick up the search again.

In many ways I feel like it is just 'right here' in front of me but I just can't quite seem to get 'there'.


I know just what you mean, at times it is like studying a jigsaw or any type of puzzle, I will suddenly visualise how a certain set of pieces fit into the whole, but the puzzle is still left incomplete. I struggle to explain these 'things' to myself, let alone to others, but the over-riding sense is of all things falling into place. It is to me a process of assimilation, and as you say it ebbs and flows, pits and troughs.

What I have found most pointed in Illusionsaregranders posts and that I agree with, is the importance of being open to the flow and more responsive to you 'attraction' to know. I do not think that the search need be active, you simply need to be open to all possibilities and the acquisition of ideas. The greater and more varied my collection of 'ideas' becomes, the more aware I am of the continuity of my own within that.

What I find exceptionally difficult, and I would be interested in the perspective of others, is the sensitivity to synchronicities. I often find it hugely difficult to differentiate and can be overwhelmed by what seems like mounds of what could be and am often unsure of what is. The sheer quantity can sometimes not just overwhelm, but given a tender frame of mind, threaten. I am often torn between a number of sequences and left highly confused.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 





What I find exceptionally difficult, and I would be interested in the perspective of others, is the sensitivity to synchronicities. I often find it hugely difficult to differentiate and can be overwhelmed by what seems like mounds of what could be and am often unsure of what is.


I could not have said this better. I wonder sometimes if I am really making a connection where none exists, or if it really is 'something'.

And I think I just proved how much written language SUCKS for trying to express ideas.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
And I think I just proved how much written language SUCKS for trying to express ideas.


That is why we need people like Illusions, so we can point at them and say 'yeah, what they said'. I don't even have the vernacular...



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I don't want to derail, but I just wanted to ask a question. Last night at lodge I noticed an old diagram on the wall that referred to 'Active' 33d and 'Honorary' 33d.

What's the deal with that?

Thanks!


"Active" 33rds are voting members of the Supreme Council (Sovereign Grand Inspectors General). Honorary 33rds are honorary (non-voting) members of the Supreme Council.

The purple cap / white cap thing holds true in the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction USA only. The S.J. has two other honors (Knight Commander of the Court of Honour and Grand Cross of the Court of Honour) that have their own distinctive caps as well.



posted on Jul, 17 2008 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I struggle to explain these 'things' to myself, let alone to others, but the over-riding sense is of all things falling into place. It is to me a process of assimilation, and as you say it ebbs and flows, pits and troughs.


I think part of the problem is that we are all "two headed" as Parmenides phrased it.

www.gmu.edu...


Fragment 6
1 It is fitting (OR: necessary) to say and noein eon (being; what is) is; for it is (for this can be; for it is) for being (OR: to be),
(OR:It is necessary/fitting to say and noein that eon is; for...)
(OR:...; for to be is,)
2 By no means is it not. These things I bid you to indicate to yourself;
(OR:Nothing is not....)
3 For from this first road of inquiry I bar you,
4 But also from the road on which mortals understanding nothing
5-6 Wander two-headed, for helplessness in their own breasts drives their wandering noos straight, and they are borne lurching along
7 Deaf and blind equally, dazed, a tribe without judgment,
8 By whom it is held that pelein (to be; to go on) and ouk einai (not to be) are the same
9 And not the same, but the path of all is back-turning.


There is the consciousness, the awareness, which "sees what is" and then there is the mind/identity/ego which thinks about what was, or what will be. The mind is never in the present. You dont have to take my word for it, you can see it for yourself if you watch your own mind closely for a while. You can even think about what you are looking at now, but you might notice that the seeing always precedes your ability to think about what you are seeing. It is just slightly, oh so very slightly, in the past by the time you think about it. Awareness is silent. You take in what is around you. (imagine seeing something really unexpected, something you might have once seen for the very first time, the mind is silent for a while as awareness drinks in the details) The thinking mind interprets it, and then begins to "talk" about it, but it is always, (even if just infinitesimally as with things the mind already "knows") out of the present. It is either mulling over what was just experienced, or projecting into the future what it wants or fears to experience next.

The ebbs and troughs you guys are speaking of, (and I know them well) are the swings of dominance between our two selves. The Self, the consciousness itself, and the self the mind/ego/etc. When the self (small s) is dominant, we are "out of time" and though not out of the flow, (I dont think we can be) we are not "seeing" it as clearly or fully as we could be if the mind were quieter and less disturbed. (anxious)


Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
What I find exceptionally difficult, and I would be interested in the perspective of others, is the sensitivity to synchronicities. I often find it hugely difficult to differentiate and can be overwhelmed by what seems like mounds of what could be and am often unsure of what is. The sheer quantity can sometimes not just overwhelm, but given a tender frame of mind, threaten. I am often torn between a number of sequences and left highly confused.


I am still working on this all myself. Your paragraph has clues. When you consider what could be, or are unsure of what is, you are out of the present. Thinking about it. I have theories about why we end up in this state and why it creates these troughs. One of them is that there is a state of "what is" that is fallow, or waiting, or "in-between." (winter, the calm before the storm, gestation, etc.) The mind HATES in between. It hates "not knowing." And my mind at least goes into a little frenzy during these "uncertain" times, and begins telling scary stories, or spinning wild fantasies, which leave me wrung emotionally.

The Self doesnt mind "not knowing." In fact, as we touched on earlier, the "not knowing" state is where the magic happens. You can only really see clearly when you approach with no preconceived notions, no expectations. (including when we are "seeing synchronicities" as opposed to "looking for them") Easier said than done for most of us, particularly when it is a big emotional trigger issue. (Job change, big life decision, etc.) The mind says "I must know! I must have a plan!" What Is is unmoved by the demands of the mind. What Is, simply Is.

The Self just sees what is happening now, and makes the next (appropriate) move. You duck when something is thrown at you "automatically" or without thought, as long as you see it. There are exceptions of course, but this is just an example of movement as a result of seeing without the thinking mind "doing" anything. Of course the body and the wiring of the brain are involved, but they arent the same as the egoic thinking identity part I am calling the "mind." The Self sees "what is" and does what is appropriate. Including nothing when nothing is appropriate.

I think you already see something important Kilgore, and that is highlighted in your comment that;


The greater and more varied my collection of 'ideas' becomes, the more aware I am of the continuity of my own within that.


Perhaps when you are feeling like this,


I am often torn between a number of sequences and left highly confused.


you just need to wait a while until that continuity becomes apparent to you. Perhaps it is just the poor, busy, anxious mind (that we all have) trying to rush things, trying to "know for sure" what the outcome will be, (which is unknowable to it) rather than watching it patiently as it unfolds.

I also think that a great disservice has been done to all travelers on the path when this struggle with the mind and uncertainty is downplayed in the lives of all the masters and saints. Even Jesus struggled with "What is" and "what he wished was." From the King James version of the Bible;
Matthew26: 37-39.


37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. 38 Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.”
39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible,let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join