A Christmas Message ("The Child Within Us Lives")

[Rich Note: Continuing with Harangue 2, Part I (With regard to “Harangue 3,” let me respond with a Heartfelt, “Thank You for Making the Truth Plain!”) ]

Re: “…this attempt to employ low level poetry as a means of co-opting science in order to evoke mystical-existential experience.

As with “right or wrong,”
Nothing is “high or low,” but
Thinking makes it so.

 “…employing low level poetry” is a not only judgmental and pejorative, it’s intellectual arrogant and, ultimately, “self-indicative and indicting.”

[Rich Note:  Hopeful, the judgment to that effect that arose here is “judging righteous judgment” and, thus,  not equally pejorative and self-indicting - lol.]

 Now, on to the particular charges of the indictment as the prosecution has

This may “be how It appears to you,” Layman, from a particular personal, bottom-up, personal perspective, but said appearance is a rather obvious reflection of a “premise of relative self-existence” assumed to be Real.  It also reeks of “an assumed person” projecting his own “self-referencing motivation” and assumed capacity to “do something, anything” (re: “…employing low level poetry…” and “co-opting science) on “Reality, Isness or Whatever Else One might choose to “call or not call IT (or IS).”

[Rich Note: Oh, and here, Lyman, is a bit of that “low level poetry” (or is it “moi that stands accused by the Chief Prosecutor?”) -- which is an Alliterative Poem (and “E Sound Mantra”) that tells the Story of Bill Samuel’s Awakening, Illumination and/or Enlightenment (A Story Bill Claims to be “Every One’s Story ”) -- you have summarily dismissed (and with any substantial “just cause” that I can see) as “foolishness” (playful or otherwise):

“…Now I look across the valley and see a tree.  It's me!  Because when do I see it but in the Awareness I be.  And how? - Seeing is being me! The tree is an attribute of loveliness Deity knows Itself to be. Yea, God- Awareness is my activity -- Faithful witness of Harmony, Honest Witness of Simplicity, Eternal action of Deity --  Indeed, this Now Awareness is Identity! The impostor's judgment had been the impostor's agony…."

And an even “lower level” version of same, from here:

One Awareness Is
Being All I Am in Each
And Every Moment.]

Re: I would assert that when we are engaged in discursive thought -- such as we are now, such as we are within any sensible conversation -- that we cannot talk as if the Ultra-Top Down perspective is really an option.

And on exactly what basis do you assert/establish/decree such a “Law of Sensible Conversation” (an action which  is, in itself, again, judgmental, intellectually arrogant and smacks of “ the non-dualistic orthodoxy’s  nit picking” over the use of “emotionally charged dualistic words” such as “me, myself and I”), Lyman?  

Obviously, no word is or ever can become “the thing in itself” and, as such, is a linguistic contradistinction or shadow image that should never be allowed to become a surrogate for Reality, in Part or Whole.  However, to arbitrarily choose to excluded a Word (or string of them) that to represent (for conceptual computation) or point to the Utra-Top Down or Absolute Perspective, because one has no“Direct, Heartfelt Apprehension of Said Ultimate Perspective, is in no way justifiable or intellectually honest;  and is clearly subversive to a conversation which, presumably,  aims at a better delineating --through what is, by definition, “linguistic contradistinction -- the Ultimate Nature of Being. 

[Rich Note: Here, Dear Lyman,  is a “Bill Samuel, First Hand, Prime, Living Demonstration”  of the “efficacy of words” (which at best are always half-truths and a worst outright lies) used to express, point to and, yes, perhaps, even -- depending on the “ripeness” of the “particular human, bottom-up or particle state perspective” hearing or reading them -- to Awaken (“as in the twinkling of an eye”) That Divine Perspective; and, in so doing, use words to “evoke (in what “mind identified as self” would naturally see as magical or supernatural) a feeling” that occasions a “direct apprehension, recognition and/or remembrance” of Said Ultra-Top Down Perspective One Ultimately Is -- A Selfless, Absolute Perspective (or Seeing) of Being that All Are, in Spirit, Truth and Essence, in each and every apparent moment, but mostly imagine otherwise:

“…We can start again to try to tell It again, (chuckle) and tell it like It Is, but I tell you there are no words that are gentle enough; oh, there are just no words that are soft enough, but maybe there will be some sort of a mysterious combination of them; maybe, ahaah, something, a magic combination that will be able to elicit the feeling that will be gentle enough to tell It like It Is.  Love is that feeling. All Feeling is Love.  It is always Love. It is always Love that does the work, or what appears to be the work that’s done. Love is here right now as Identity. Right Now.”

(This was the “back end” of an audio transcription of Bill Samuel’s  “Vignettes on Love 1.5” of which the following extract is the “front end”)

“On the grass, here in the sun shine, I gently be myself. I close my eyes and I gently be myself. Do it with me now. I close my eyes and I just gently be myself.

Now thoughts come, thoughts come. They say "I Live as Awareness. They say, "I Am Awareness." They say," Awareness is my very Being and my Function.  Functioning Awareness Am I.
I see and feel and hear. Seeing, feeling, hearing am I. Thinking am I. Thoughts am I. Right here, right now, natural, unworried, unhurried, majestic, effortless Being. Isn’t that what’s going on?
Here in this lovely garden, the fragrances of flowers impinge themselves on me, as me, as Awareness and I Am those fragrances. The sounds of a distant hammer blows, the drone of a bee, present themselves as this Awareness, as me. And I am those sounds.

Now, with the sounds as they come, come thoughts, and with thoughts feelings; and with feelings, images, memories. Memories, yes, fragrances of yesteryear. Oh I know again, I know again as I sit here, that yesterday has gone nowhere, nothing has been destroyed by time, covered over maybe, but not destroyed.

All that stands between Awareness and the freshness of Childhood, is the habit of concern, the blanket of struggle, the pride of acquisition and human accomplishment, the deadening practice of being a custodian of life, a caretaker of life, the guardian of life. Never, never have I been that dead one, really, not really, not in Truth, only in a half-dream.
I breath deeply and the heart sings like the Child I Am, l (chuckle) like the Child I Am.
Alright now, alright now, refreshed, refreshed…”(the Circle Comes Full Above).
(The caps are, of course, “mine,” Lyman– lol)]

Re: This Divine Simultaneity in which the Deepest Root of All Subjects & Objects are tacitly shared is available as Direct Realization but no available as a faux-physics which attempts to co-opt any popular science memes which suggests mind-boggling of any kind. This is unseemly!

(See All of the Above)

Re: When "time stands still" TIME does not really stand still. Rather we understand ourselves in a different relationship to Time.

Quite so, Lyman, since the “conceptual, asymmetrical time” begotten of  “a visceral sense of time” that naturally arises from “linear, sequential, mental word-processing” -- called “relative thinking or discursive thought”  -- literally ceases to be (in Awareness) when one, either temporarily (through mental distractions of one form or another) or permanently (through “Awakening One Self as One Is In Spirit and Truth) one stops being addicted to and so identifying with both the “process and the processer.”
 

Re: So while it is fairly innocuous in casual circumstances to say "time stands still" we are ultimately looking at a kind of intellectual approach which confuses both authentic revelation and authentic science.

By what Standard do you measure “authentic anything” (from Direct Revelation, Insight or Knowing as I Am Known to the Science, which, in itself, is nothing more than an highly accurate way of relative looking and relating to Reality; and one which operates on premise of the “substantial reality of relativity”), Lyman, when every-thing less than the Absolute is necessarily Absolutely Unreal by Absolute Standards.

[Rich Note: Seen in this light, is not “Authentic” really just another “faux-word” for that “Real, Reality or Absolute Isness” we are not supposed to ‘language” without breaking that “pseudo intellectual sense law”  you originally proposed, but I rejected based on the F.E.A.R  (“Facts Not In Evidence Assumed to Be Real”) AAA and Jurist Principle of sound judgment.]

[Rich Note: Continuing and Finalizing with Harangue 2, Part II]

RE: Which, I gather is also the Wilbersaurus attack on quantum mysticism -- and the reason he felt obliged to take such pains in distinguishing it from the genuine mysticism of quantum physicists.

As to why Wibersaurus (or is that Wiber-i-tis?), bless his little heart, felt obliged to take such pain in this regard, as well as to keep formulating an “Intellectual Sound Theory of Everything” (ad nauseum) too complex for those with less than 180 I.Q.s to either understand (or care about), let alone apply (except, perhaps, as sort of like a Infinitely Complex Zen Koan for Intellectuals) is best summed up by “Wibur (as a body mind organism) likes (and I paraphrase an “Enlightened Expression of No One and Nothing” -- I forget What One, body-mind wise -- lol) show how intelligent he is,” but momentarily drops his “Wizard of Oz Curtain” with the “Always Already Clear Bright Awareness” piece that serves as an Appendix in “The Eye of the Spirit.”

From here, at least, Ken’s Real Masterpiece, as an offering to “Our Collective Spiritual Awakening” that the “apparent mass of humanity” can actually Relate to is “One Taste”; while the rest of it (post “Spectrum of Consciousness’) is pretty much postscript Mental Masterbation (Re: Playing with One Self Intellectually to the Nth degree of Complexity – which I here am not stranger to) at the Upper Level of Shear Intellectual Genius.” 

But that is just how it is Seen from Here [after a 40 years of (and 3000 to 4000 books) of conceptual triangulation, not to evoke a mystical experience, but rather to explain and express It].  Bottom-line is, “Ken’s Theory, as Creative a Work of Shear Intellectual Genius and Art” is a “Thing of Equisite Intellectual Beauty,” but a “dam lousy pointer” to a “Joe Six-Pack, Man on the Street’s, Human way of Seeing  (Re:   “through a mental glass or mirror darkly,” upside-down and backwards) and so relating to Reality.

 RE: You observe that Consciousness experiencing at the level of the Dynamic Simultaneity (my words), which is the most basic form of Time…

Substitute “Existence or Being” for “Time” (unless said Time is Apprehended as Being from “Alpha to Omega,” All at One Time ,or “Everlasting”)  and I’ll “buy it,” Layman.

Re: “…relates to the "dinging" and the "strike", the "cause" and the "effect" as mutually always already existing as perpetual temporal possibilities. And I could not agree more!

Finally!  (LOL)

Re: However...

“I couldn’t agree more, however…” is a bit of an oxymoron,”  isn’t Layman; unless, of course, you mean to indicate that “any and all relative mental agreement on anything and everything” is, at best, “partial, incomplete and imperfect (re: circumscribed, conditional, time-bound and limited) in nature from the “git go.”

[Rich Note:  You know of course, Lyman, that “if, and, but, why and however, et al” (all words that clearly imply some degree of resistance to “What IS” or, as Adyashanti might say  “Not letting It Be as It Is”) are rather unsubtle announcements that an “ego” (or “mind identified as self” as Hedderman likes to call it) is “on the stage” and about to make a “relative statement” assumed and treated as if it were Absolute (Re: “The half-truth taken to be Whole that plays the Devil,” to paraphrase Sir Alfred North Whitehead).

Re: This is NOT what neutrino velocity results suggests.

Suggestion, as is Beauty, is in the Eye of the Beholder, Lyman.  Such an absolute declaration with regard to any relative, time and space condition, is more than “unseemly” –  it is the height of intellectual arrogance and egocentricity.

Let us be perfectly clear, that this “absolute declaration on your part” is, in fact, your “particular, particle state, self-impinged, personal perspective” on a “particular subject.”

[Rich Note:  It is also totally “off point” with respect to the Truth that is Being Pointed to here, and subversive to that Cause (Re: “Bearing witness to the Absolute Truth of Being, in words, if we must – which here is an obviously  and natural Spontaneous Must).

Re: And none of this is languaged adequately by the superficial enthusiasm of half-informed physics-poets who merely promulgate popular prejudice -- and whose apparent invocation of the Supreme View amounts to little more than a "juicy" reference to a magically non-existential hyperspace, i.e. extra-spatial supra-temporal no man's land, ie. nothingness, i.e. nihilism, i.e. the exact opposite of the already totally implicit presence of the Non-Dual One.

There is just too much emotion in this particular harangue to respond both intelligently and without emotion on “this end of the perceptual stick,” Lyman.

Re; Well, what to make of a paragraph like that?

As it’s your bottom-up, self-projection, rather than “my top down version of the same thing,” I’ll let you “draw whatever conclusion” you might like (Re: “be like”).

Re: The fact that 1/infinity = 899/infinity does NOT mean that 1=899. The Absolute cannot be employed as if it were Relative. As soon as we do that we're not talking about the Absolute... we're just getting the relative wrong. And maybe we find it cute, but still... our instinct toward intellectual cleanliness should cast a very suspicious eye upon such enterprises.

I find it extremely interesting that you would sum up what is being discussed as “1/Infinity=899/infinity does not mean 1=899,” Lyman, when 1/infinity = 0 and Infinity/1 = 0 is a much truer characterization of what I would hope we have be discussing. For however large a finite number might be remains “effectively zero” relative to Infinity; and, as such, does not exist as other than a temporal appearance in Reality (and, as such, is Ultimately Meaningless) by Absolute Standards (Re:  considered in the Face of or Light of Infinity). 

No, as particular conceptual states, vibratory patterns of particle state energy, appearances, or potential qualities or attributes of the Awareness I Am, You Are and All Is, “I and 899” are not relatively equal or equivalent.  They are, however, in the Face of Infinity (in their own absolutely unique way as integral Parts of One Whole) --  as the One and Expressing as  Many (however large the number assigned) both are mathematically equivalent to Zero or Nothing; in which case, they are Equivalent or Absolutely Equal in the Essential Nothingness of their Nature.

Ergo: Seen from a Top-Down or Absolute Perspective (sorry about that, “I got to be me,” relatively speaking) of Infinity “1 = 899” is a true equation since both 1 and 899 are equal to 0 when divided by Infinity.  In other words one appearance that is Ultimately Nothing is equivalent to “any and all other appearances” that are like-wise equivalent to Zero when subject to said Absolute Standard of Measure.

[Rich Note: At this point, Lyman, it feels like any more “word play in this stream” (which is rapidly becoming a puddle) would counter-productive, so  I’m going to leave ”harangue 3” stand on its own merit (in the context of what has gone before) unread and unanswered from the perspective (as absolute or relative as it may be) here.]