What is your vision of transcendence?

[Pam Seeback]

It is my observation that the posters on this board are attached, in varying degrees, to their prejudice toward what they call "religious" language, so much so that it is closing their ears to the wisdom of metaphor and myth that can take them behind the curtain of their human intellectual prejudice so to see, within themselves, the 'why, when, what, who, and where' of their human thoughts of relativism. Those very human thoughts, that most here on this board, have expressed a sincere and serious desire to transcend.

Fear of "religious" language is justified, but at some point, even for the most jaded, there must be an acknowledgment that "religious" language, if not twisted and bent to serve one's personal version of God, touches the mind or soul in a way that no human intellectual relativism can. The reason being, is that the intellect divides so as to find a cause, whereas the poetry of myth and metaphor that is expressed of the impersonal I [of "religious" language], speaks from the position of cause and effect as being of a single unit. This is the true wisdom of Jesus and of the Buddha and of Lao Tzu, and if the sages of the intellect do not awaken to this wisdom of the way of being lifted up beyond the law of gravity of their human form attachment, then to the law of gravity of the intellect, one will be bound.

Carl Jung first touched on the wisdom of symbols to lift one beyond their gravitational pull of the intellect of human form attachment. There were others who expanded upon his revelations, until came the master of comprehension of the way of symbolism as the way of transcendence, Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell, by his own admission, was a burned out, pissed off ex-Catholic who eventually awakened to the error that man was making in his reading of scriptures, be they of the bible or of the sutras or of the Upanishads. The error of reading these scriptures from the perspective of memory of events gone before. The bible was not written by a Christian, the sutras by a Buddhist, the Upanishads by a Hindu. They were written as pure expression of the way of transcending all these labels that were later attached to them, by individuals who were not of the pure mind of those who wrote them of the spirit of transcendence.

If what I say above is not so, then for those here who are sincere in their dedication to transcend the law of gravity of their attachment thinking, I am open to hearing your vision of how you plan to "make it so."

[cousinbasil]

The bible was not written by a Christian, the sutras by a Buddhist, the Upanishads by a Hindu.

But by many Christians (and Jews), many Buddhists, and many Hindus. I think it is incumbent upon anyone interested in such writings to understand their historical context as much as possible. This is in fact a helpful way to discern between the "letter" and the "spirit," so to speak.

If what I say above is not so, then for those here who are sincere in their dedication to transcend the law of gravity of their attachment thinking, I am open to hearing your vision of how you plan to "make it so."

It already is so.

...the intellect divides so as to find a cause, whereas the poetry of myth and metaphor that is expressed of the impersonal I [of "religious" language], speaks from the position of cause and effect as being of a single unit.

As opposed to other positions. Your statement implies dualism and therefore can be taken to negate its own content.

Fear of "religious" language is justified, but at some point, even for the most jaded, there must be an acknowledgment that "religious" language, if not twisted and bent to serve one's personal version of God, touches the mind or soul in a way that no human intellectual relativism can.

Just so; this is why when one hears it, one wonders whose personal version one is listening to, and in what way(s) it might be twisted and bent. This is why the context of the many "user's manuals" should not simply be ignored.

[Dennis Mahar]

every thing is a symbol of itself and only of itself.
each thing has the possibilty of enchantment.
who gives it meaning?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Carl Jung first touched on the wisdom of symbols to lift one beyond their gravitational pull of the intellect of human form attachment. There were others who expanded upon his revelations, until came the master of comprehension of the way of symbolism as the way of transcendence, Joseph Campbell.

All language is symbol and it's the context which dictates how abstract or how metaphorical any wise expression can be without losing meaning. A colorful metaphor might seem at times wider in scope and more powerful but there's also an increasing chance on more confusion, literalism and distraction. But on the other hand, the abstract term can in the wrong mind become a numbing tranquilizer, or a block toward deeper understanding by forming an intellectual trap.

All great myths in the sense of Jung and Campell's hero are not just templates for events in life like birth, maturing and death, it also captures the rise and fall of consciousness itself. In other words: the better the myth, the more levels it works on. When one studies the religious language as used by most believers, it's not hard to see they serve these days mainly as serious blocks toward truth, all the imagery only adding to an already present elemental confusion of the image. Such language therefore will start to work like a cushion, a web of misdirection and comfort to prevent any surgical desire for truth to stir.

Why then would one add to this with more religious imagery and metaphors? In my view a call for more abstract, direct, almost minimalist phrasing might in these times serve as counter-weight to the replicating, expanding fluff of spiritual expression; the growing desert. Similar to how Zen acted once against the sprawling swamp of Buddhism. It's reform language!

[Pam Seeback]

Diebert: Why then would one add to this with more religious imagery and metaphors? In my view a call for more abstract, direct, almost minimalist phrasing might in these times serve as counter-weight to the replicating, expanding fluff of spiritual expression; the growing desert. Similar to how Zen acted once against the sprawling swamp of Buddhism. It's reform language!

Myth and metaphor that does not produce forms of humanism serve the same purpose as a Zen koan. That is, to provide a way of thinking that keeps the mind's attention on one's pure awareness. It was you who used the metaphor of the first born, of the immaculate conception, one that expanded my vision of renunciation in a way that a zen koan could never do.

Such language therefore will start to work like a cushion, a web of misdirection and comfort to prevent any surgical desire for truth to stir.

Not so if, as I stated above, the language points to one's pure awareness, not allowing a human image of sense to be formed. A way of thinking that is of vertical ascent.

As for comfort, the reality of transcending, for most, is that, at times, some comfort is needed. Who can sustain the surgical cut every moment of every day? Certainly no one I have encountered on my journey of ascension.

[Pam Seeback]

every thing is a symbol of itself and only of itself.
each thing has the possibilty of enchantment.
who gives it meaning?

Dennis, this post was about one's vision of transcendence, not of enchantment. Two different directions of thought.

[Pam Seeback]

Quote: movingalways:
If what I say above is not so, then for those here who are sincere in their dedication to transcend the law of gravity of their attachment thinking, I am open to hearing your vision of how you plan to "make it so."

cousinbasil: It already is so.

Saying it is so, does not make it so. How is 'it' so?

Quote:movingalways:
...the intellect divides so as to find a cause, whereas the poetry of myth and metaphor that is expressed of the impersonal I [of "religious" language], speaks from the position of cause and effect as being of a single unit.

cousinbasil: As opposed to other positions. Your statement implies dualism and therefore can be taken to negate its own content.

Again, saying something does not make it so. How does my statement imply dualism? And, what other positions of opposition are you referring to?

Quote:movingalways:
Fear of "religious" language is justified, but at some point, even for the most jaded, there must be an acknowledgment that "religious" language, if not twisted and bent to serve one's personal version of God, touches the mind or soul in a way that no human intellectual relativism can.

cousinbasil: Just so; this is why when one hears it, one wonders whose personal version one is listening to, and in what way(s) it might be twisted and bent. This is why the context of the many "user's manuals" should not simply be ignored.

This is up to the discernment of one reading such language. For me, words that suggest That which is beyond all words, and touches and expands my spirit of this suggestion, are written by a mind that is being obedient to standing on their pure awareness, and speaking, metaphorically, from this obedience.

[Dennis Mahar]

You always/already are awareness Pam.
Why make up a story about how to get to where you always/already are.
You don't need a GPS.

one's vision of transcendence

is a conceptualised, verbalised, abstract image that is not reality.

The point of Jung and Campbell is that people are bewitched in a Story, spellbound, entranced, enchanted...
It's not reality.

[jufa]

You always/already are awareness Pam.
Why make up a story about how to get to where you always/already are.
You don't need a GPS.

one's vision of transcendence

is a conceptualised, verbalised, abstract image that is not reality.

The point of Jung and Campbell is that people are bewitched in a Story, spellbound, entranced, enchanted...
It's not reality.

Are Jung, Campbell, Mahar outside of the human race? Are they not also those people

bewitched in a Story?

Are they not also

spellbound, entranced, enchanted...?

making

It's not reality.

what they have spoken or written?

What is the distinction of reality? Simple questions which only requires a simple answer.

Never give power to anything a person believes their source of strength - jufa

[Dennis Mahar]

A round of sophistry is it Jufa?
A pertinent question is your sponsoring of this guileful, conniving feminine ego..
With it's wish-list.
It's manipulation of the men here,
to,
'expand me'
'expand me'
expand me'
' I have no wish to dialogue with you unless I feel the expansion of me"

WTF?

What are you getting out of that living hell Jufa?

[cousinbasil]

movingalways: If what I say above is not so, then for those here who are sincere in their dedication to transcend the law of gravity of their attachment thinking, I am open to hearing your vision of how you plan to "make it so."

cousinbasil: It already is so.

movingalways: Saying it is so, does not make it so. How is 'it' so?

I don't know, Pam. You brought "it" up. I thought I was agreeing. The "it" that you "say above" was:

Fear of "religious" language is justified, but ... there must be an acknowledgment that "religious" language, if not twisted and bent to serve one's personal version of God, touches the mind or soul in a way that no human intellectual relativism can. The reason being, is that the intellect divides so as to find a cause, whereas the poetry of myth and metaphor that is expressed of the impersonal I [of "religious" language], speaks from the position of cause and effect as being of a single unit.

And I agree with that. This is exactly the position "religious language" purports to speak from. I am not as certain as you seem to be that such "religious language," even if unbent and untwisted, is free of relativism, however. Any language that consists of more than one word implies relativism.

cousinbasil: As opposed to other positions. Your statement implies dualism and therefore can be taken to negate its own content.

movingalways: Again, saying something does not make it so. How does my statement imply dualism? And, what other positions of opposition are you referring to?

Any other position.

[jufa]

[quote="Dennis Mahar"]A round of sophistry is it Jufa?
A pertinent question is your sponsoring of this guileful, conniving feminine ego..
With it's wish-list.
It's manipulation of the men here,
to,
'expand me'
'expand me'
expand me'
' I have no wish to dialogue with you unless I feel the expansion of me"

WTF?

What are you getting out of that living hell Jufa?[/quote]

To see how followers run when they can't stand up on their own?

Never give power to anything person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[Ataraxia]

It is my observation that the posters on this board are attached, in varying degrees, to their prejudice toward what they call "religious" language, so much so that it is closing their ears to the wisdom of metaphor and myth that can take them behind the curtain of their human intellectual prejudice so to see, within themselves, the 'why, when, what, who, and where' of their human thoughts of relativism. Those very human thoughts, that most here on this board, have expressed a sincere and serious desire to transcend.

Fear of "religious" language is justified, but at some point, even for the most jaded, there must be an acknowledgment that "religious" language, if not twisted and bent to serve one's personal version of God, touches the mind or soul in a way that no human intellectual relativism can. The reason being, is that the intellect divides so as to find a cause, whereas the poetry of myth and metaphor that is expressed of the impersonal I [of "religious" language], speaks from the position of cause and effect as being of a single unit. This is the true wisdom of Jesus and of the Buddha and of Lao Tzu, and if the sages of the intellect do not awaken to this wisdom of the way of being lifted up beyond the law of gravity of their human form attachment, then to the law of gravity of the intellect, one will be bound.

Carl Jung first touched on the wisdom of symbols to lift one beyond their gravitational pull of the intellect of human form attachment. There were others who expanded upon his revelations, until came the master of comprehension of the way of symbolism as the way of transcendence, Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell, by his own admission, was a burned out, pissed off ex-Catholic who eventually awakened to the error that man was making in his reading of scriptures, be they of the bible or of the sutras or of the Upanishads. The error of reading these scriptures from the perspective of memory of events gone before. The bible was not written by a Christian, the sutras by a Buddhist, the Upanishads by a Hindu. They were written as pure expression of the way of transcending all these labels that were later attached to them, by individuals who were not of the pure mind of those who wrote them of the spirit of transcendence.

If what I say above is not so, then for those here who are sincere in their dedication to transcend the law of gravity of their attachment thinking, I am open to hearing your vision of how you plan to "make it so."

Blah

Are Jung, Campbell, Mahar outside of the human race? Are they not also those people

Well played, sir.

[Dennis Mahar]

Well played, sir.

Jung, Campbell, Mahar, jufa, Ataraxia.

Play on!

[Pam Seeback]

You always/already are awareness Pam.
Why make up a story about how to get to where you always/already are.
You don't need a GPS.

one's vision of transcendence



is a conceptualised, verbalised, abstract image that is not reality.

The point of Jung and Campbell is that people are bewitched in a Story, spellbound, entranced, enchanted...
It's not reality.

I am aware that I am aware, Dennis, but like everyone else, I have a double-minded awareness, which is best expressed by the scripture "Before Abraham was, I am." Before naming was, I am.

Both Jung and Campbell realized that every symbol, every myth and every metaphor is alive because of man's memory. And because no memory can be recalled in its exactness of its original living, it is recalled in a form that seems new, but is not. This is to be caught in being spellbound, betwitched and enchanted. Which, by my accounts, is a perfect definition of the emotional nature of Woman, of Eve, the essence of Man that is declared, by the sages of this forum, to be the essence of Man that 'gets in the way' of wisdom and is to be elminated.

What you describe of the nature of the Story of Man is dead thought that appears alive [the illusion]. This is the suffering of which the Buddha recognized, the eternal craving of man. It is time the suffering ended. Plain and simple. Which means the Story must end. Plain and simple. Man is afraid that if his Story ends, he ends. Nonsense. Before the Story was, I am. This is my journey. To end the eternal circle of being bewitched and enchanted of form that in and of itself, has no substance, is not real. To use Diebert's metaphor, Pam is being surgically removed from [the Metaphor of] I am, one possessed myth [memory] of Pam at a time. The ultimate journey of Faith, of living on the edge of myself, of BEING ALIVE.

[Pam Seeback]

Quote: movingalways:
Fear of "religious" language is justified, but ... there must be an acknowledgment that "religious" language, if not twisted and bent to serve one's personal version of God, touches the mind or soul in a way that no human intellectual relativism can. The reason being, is that the intellect divides so as to find a cause, whereas the poetry of myth and metaphor that is expressed of the impersonal I [of "religious" language], speaks from the position of cause and effect as being of a single unit.

cousinbasil: And I agree with that. This is exactly the position "religious language" purports to speak from. I am not as certain as you seem to be that such "religious language," even if unbent and untwisted, is free of relativism, however. Any language that consists of more than one word implies relativism.

"I am" implies relating, pure relativity, but not relativism, at least not by my definition. Relativism is relationship of the opposites found only in the human realm, man vs. woman, good vs. evil, etc. There is no dualism stated in the pure relating of "I am." And, if we expand upon the singularity implied in the relativity of "I am," by referencing its relationship to the belief in dualism that is an extension of the law of gravity or matter, the scripture is "Before Abraham was, I am." Which, although references the belief in dualism, is not, itself, a dual statement, that is, one that suggests that opposites are real. I and the Father are One is another scripture that suggests relationship of thought, but no where in this scripture is dualism even suggested. I and the Father are One is the metaphorical statement of the Reality of Pure Thought, of which I am, of which you are, of which all here are.

Quote:
cousinbasil: As opposed to other positions. Your statement implies dualism and therefore can be taken to negate its own content.

movingalways: Again, saying something does not make it so. How does my statement imply dualism? And, what other positions of opposition are you referring to?

cousinbasil: Any other position.

I hope I successfully nullifed what you say here by my words above.

[Pam Seeback]

It is my observation that the posters on this board are attached, in varying degrees, to their prejudice toward what they call "religious" language, so much so that it is closing their ears to the wisdom of metaphor and myth that can take them behind the curtain of their human intellectual prejudice so to see, within themselves, the 'why, when, what, who, and where' of their human thoughts of relativism. Those very human thoughts, that most here on this board, have expressed a sincere and serious desire to transcend.

Fear of "religious" language is justified, but at some point, even for the most jaded, there must be an acknowledgment that "religious" language, if not twisted and bent to serve one's personal version of God, touches the mind or soul in a way that no human intellectual relativism can. The reason being, is that the intellect divides so as to find a cause, whereas the poetry of myth and metaphor that is expressed of the impersonal I [of "religious" language], speaks from the position of cause and effect as being of a single unit. This is the true wisdom of Jesus and of the Buddha and of Lao Tzu, and if the sages of the intellect do not awaken to this wisdom of the way of being lifted up beyond the law of gravity of their human form attachment, then to the law of gravity of the intellect, one will be bound.

Carl Jung first touched on the wisdom of symbols to lift one beyond their gravitational pull of the intellect of human form attachment. There were others who expanded upon his revelations, until came the master of comprehension of the way of symbolism as the way of transcendence, Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell, by his own admission, was a burned out, pissed off ex-Catholic who eventually awakened to the error that man was making in his reading of scriptures, be they of the bible or of the sutras or of the Upanishads. The error of reading these scriptures from the perspective of memory of events gone before. The bible was not written by a Christian, the sutras by a Buddhist, the Upanishads by a Hindu. They were written as pure expression of the way of transcending all these labels that were later attached to them, by individuals who were not of the pure mind of those who wrote them of the spirit of transcendence.

If what I say above is not so, then for those here who are sincere in their dedication to transcend the law of gravity of their attachment thinking, I am open to hearing your vision of how you plan to "make it so."

Blah

Are Jung, Campbell, Mahar outside of the human race? Are they not also those people

Ataraxia: Well played, sir.

This post is our first exchange of words, and you give me a) someone else's words and b) the depth of your analysis of relating someone else's words to mine and calling it 'blah' and 'well played, sir.' This is evidence to me that you cannot stand on your own wisdom and take me on, wisdom to wisdom.

As for your backslap of "well played, sir" to jufa, you have arbitrarily plucked out a quote from his post which you believe supports your 'blah.' I suggest you go back and read it again, with eyes wide open.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

Both Jung and Campbell realized that every symbol, every myth and every metaphor is alive because of man's memory. And because no memory can be recalled in its exactness of its original living, it is recalled in a form that seems new, but is not. This is to be caught in being spellbound, betwitched and enchanted. Which, by my accounts, is a perfect definition of the emotional nature of Woman, of Eve, the essence of Man that is declared, by the sages of this forum, to be the essence of Man that 'gets in the way' of wisdom and is to be elminated.

Of course that's what is meant. Isn't it a better, clearer way of speaking?
The way you guys talk it's as tho' you think you're talking to a bunch of buttermilk churners and reed basket weavers in a downtown Thracian marketplace circa 12AD.
Hello? it's 2010AD, we moved on.

Pam is being surgically removed from [the Metaphor of] I am, one possessed myth [memory] of Pam at a time. The ultimate journey of Faith, of living on the edge of myself, of BEING ALIVE.

Please, will you now discuss the method?

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways: Pam is being surgically removed from [the Metaphor of] I am, one possessed myth [memory] of Pam at a time. The ultimate journey of Faith, of living on the edge of myself, of BEING ALIVE.

Dennis: Please, will you now discuss the method?

Dennis, I have already done so in my thread "The principle of non-dual objectification." In a nutshell, using what I consider to be one of the very best metaphors of a myth ever written, and one I used above in my response to cousinbasil above, I will express this method once more:

Before Abraham was, I am = Before Pam, before Dennis was, I am = Before the Story born of dualism that bewitches and enchants and spellbinds, I am.

Now that I am aware of these two ways of thinking that I am, what am I going to do about it? My two choices, as I see it, are:

a) I can remain living in my world of what was, my neverending, regurgitated Story of the memory of me reformatted to appear 'new', and also be aware of my I am wherein so such Story exists, OR

b) I can renounce and be purged of my identification with my illusory Story of the memory of me, and begin the thought walk of this method of renunciation and purgation, using metaphor and myth that reference ONLY this walk of renunciation and purgation. Before Abraham was, I am, is just such a metaphor. I and the Father are One, is just such a metaphor. "The most high place of God", is just such a metaphor. Be still and know I am God, is just such a metaphor. The Lord God of Genesis 2 in relationship to the Father God of Genesis 1 is just such a myth of visibility of The Metaphor of Invisibility.

Did I answer your question so that you 'see' the method of an expanded vision of what has been written before on the subject matter of myth and of metaphor, writings that fulfilled their purpose for their time, but that needed expanding upon to include going through the mind to get beyond the mind? Awareness of the purpose of myth and of metaphor to express the transcendent Reality that is beyond myth and metaphor is not new [Jung and Campbell], the using of it to demonstrate the walk of renunciation and of purgation is not new [Jesus and the Buddha]; however, the connecting of the two so the man of today can see the relationship between the two, is new. For now. :-)

[mensa-maniac]

It is my observation that the posters on this board are attached, in varying degrees, to their prejudice toward what they call "religious" language, so much so that it is closing their ears to the wisdom of metaphor and myth that can take them behind the curtain of their human intellectual prejudice so to see, within themselves, the 'why, when, what, who, and where' of their human thoughts of relativism. Those very human thoughts, that most here on this board, have expressed a sincere and serious desire to transcend.

Fear of "religious" language is justified, but at some point, even for the most jaded, there must be an acknowledgment that "religious" language, if not twisted and bent to serve one's personal version of God, touches the mind or soul in a way that no human intellectual relativism can. The reason being, is that the intellect divides so as to find a cause, whereas the poetry of myth and metaphor that is expressed of the impersonal I [of "religious" language], speaks from the position of cause and effect as being of a single unit. This is the true wisdom of Jesus and of the Buddha and of Lao Tzu, and if the sages of the intellect do not awaken to this wisdom of the way of being lifted up beyond the law of gravity of their human form attachment, then to the law of gravity of the intellect, one will be bound.

Carl Jung first touched on the wisdom of symbols to lift one beyond their gravitational pull of the intellect of human form attachment. There were others who expanded upon his revelations, until came the master of comprehension of the way of symbolism as the way of transcendence, Joseph Campbell. Joseph Campbell, by his own admission, was a burned out, pissed off ex-Catholic who eventually awakened to the error that man was making in his reading of scriptures, be they of the bible or of the sutras or of the Upanishads. The error of reading these scriptures from the perspective of memory of events gone before. The bible was not written by a Christian, the sutras by a Buddhist, the Upanishads by a Hindu. They were written as pure expression of the way of transcending all these labels that were later attached to them, by individuals who were not of the pure mind of those who wrote them of the spirit of transcendence.

If what I say above is not so, then for those here who are sincere in their dedication to transcend the law of gravity of their attachment thinking, I am open to hearing your vision of how you plan to "make it so."

Mensa says: I like your thoughts movingalways, you have many great ideas and you express them very well. I would like to share with you and your posters my experience with transendence.

It was about 5:00 am, I just went to bed. I was 19 years old when I transcended my spirit to leave my body and roam around the house. I didn't try to make this happen it just did. I was a consciousness that is all I was--a spirit with no brain, yet I could think. If I'd a brain I think I would have been able to control where my body was going, but I wasn't able to control my direction. It was like my brain was separated from my flesh as I had no flesh, I was invisible, everything was a greyish misty fog like appearance. I had no control over where I was going, I was floating around the room banging into the stove and fridge. Then, I saw that I was going to fall down the stairs and I did. I visualized myself in a heap at the bottom of the staircase, that's when I hollered out to God to help me and poof I was back in my bed.

[cousinbasil]

I hope I successfully nullifed what you say here by my words above.

You have succeeded in demonstrating what I have said.

"I am" implies relating, pure relativity, but not relativism, at least not by my definition.

You are making a distinction. All distinctions are relative - relativism is what makes them distinctions. Perhaps if you would sit still for a minute, miss "moving always," you would see the futility of what you are propounding.

If all you (or jufa, for that matter) were to write was "I am," no one could quibble.

And, if we expand upon the singularity implied in the relativity of "I am," by referencing its relationship to the belief in dualism that is an extension of the law of gravity or matter, the scripture is "Before Abraham was, I am."

Right there you have it. It's the so-called "expansion" that is mundane.

I get it that some scripture moves you. Some moves me, especially the NT. But much of it does not. Although I number some Jehovah's Witnesses among my friends, there is no way I believe that all scripture is the word of God and therefore inerrant.

But as Dennis and Diebert have suggested, your "religious language" may be adding to the miasma of such language already out there, and less convincingly than most.

Because what you are saying sounds to me like "I speak from a position superior to yours so you should pay attention to me." You are convinced you have insights that I, for example, lack. You may very well, you and Julius. But it is not evident to me from what either of you have written that I have so far read.

Which, although references the belief in dualism, is not, itself, a dual statement, that is, one that suggests that opposites are real. I and the Father are One is another scripture that suggests relationship of thought, but no where in this scripture is dualism even suggested. I and the Father are One is the metaphorical statement of the Reality of Pure Thought, of which I am, of which you are, of which all here are.

This is quoting Christ and I think he meant something rather more literal than a Campbellian interpretation.

And please do not take anything I have said here to be intended to in any way discourage you from your spiritual sojourn or sully its path. It is merely honest feedback.

[Dennis Mahar]

Hi cousinbasil,

You are making a distinction. All distinctions are relative - relativism is what makes them distinctions. Perhaps if you would sit still for a minute, miss "moving always," you would see the futility of what you are propounding.

If all you (or jufa, for that matter) were to write was "I am," no one could quibble.

love your style cuz, nice to be with you and Pam and everybody. Thanks.

Distinctions are useful to get access to what it means to be Human to get to 'I am' and even further to 'no-thing' where 'I am' disappears.

In my own life what shows up is the possibility of bewitchment and it's dual possibility of freedom.
I think Pam's 'vision of transcendance' is a vehicle to get her clear of bewitchment as QRS declares 'realise infinite nature' is a vehicle to get clear of bewitchment.
It's then a matter of 'holding form' to that commitment as a way of being (obedience/discipline). Of faith.
QRS has a language style with a few key concepts.
Pam/Jufa have a language style with a few key concepts.

QRS have 'held form' or shown integrity for many years that fails to get acknowledged.

When Pam says something like 'I'm giving you the cold shoulder because you contract me rather than expand me'...well that's that chick thing where the ladies make the man responsible for how they feel thereby enslaving them...totally false cop out.
Maybe I've misrepresented Pam's meaning in that but if I haven't then it means Pam is bewitched, holds poor form and lacks the integrity of the vision of transcendance.

Integrity of form is vital.

[Dennis Mahar]

Pam,

This is to be caught in being spellbound, betwitched and enchanted. Which, by my accounts, is a perfect definition of the emotional nature of Woman, of Eve, the essence of Man that is declared, by the sages of this forum, to be the essence of Man that 'gets in the w

So, it's bewitched in a Story.

In the Pam Story we've got the bookends.
The bad uncle...the good Jufa.
Both men. Are you holding men responsible?

little Pammy chewed of the poison apple (bad uncle)
fell into a swoon (sleeping beauty) (suffering)
brought to life by the kiss of a prince (Jufa)

[jufa]

Dennis stated:

brought to life by the kiss of a prince (Jufa)

Yet it is different from the kiss you gave, and still kissing, the QRS's? It's a stinky position when you are following someone from behind with your lips perched aint it? Taste nasty too I bet. Don't know, but I'll lay 5 to 10 on it.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[cousinbasil]

Dennis stated:

brought to life by the kiss of a prince (Jufa)

Yet it is different from the kiss you gave, and still kissing, the QRS's? It's a stinky position when you are following someone from behind with your lips perched aint it? Taste nasty too I bet. Don't know, but I'll lay 5 to 10 on it.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

Yes, Pam, my soul is touched by "religious language."
BTW, jufa, if English is not your first language, I apologize, but I think the word you were going for there was "pursed," not "perched."