"All Fords are exactly alike, but no two men are just alike. Every new life is a new thing under the sun; there has never been anything just like it before, never will be again. A young man ought to get that idea about himself; he should look for the single spark of individuality that makes him different from other folks, and develop that for all he is worth. Society and schools may try to iron it out of him; their tendency is to put it all in the same mold, but I say don't let that spark be lost; it is your only real claim to importance." - Henry Ford
Albert Einstein seemed to be in agreement, when he said: "The really valuable thing in the pageant of human life seems to me not the State but the creative, sentient individual, the personality; it alone creates the noble and the sublime. . ."
An individual being is defined by St. Thomas as "quod est in se indivisum, ab aliis vero divisum" (a being undivided in itself but separated from other beings). It implies therefore unity and separateness or distinctness. Individuality in general may be defined or described as the property or collection of properties by which the individual possesses this unity and is separated off from other beings. What is it that constitutes an individual, or individuality?
Everyone who is alive, explores and expresses their identity. What makes us individuals? Is being an individual the same as being different? When we enjoy our commonalities with others, do we lose our individuality? What do YOU think?
Artwork by Ralaf Olbinski Many thanks.
Posts
43 comments:
You gave us a good model in Henry Ford`s words, but first, we must define our "personal belief" in what individuality constitutes, yes?
I absolutely agree with St. Thomas of Aquinas.
wrote ...
a being undivided in itself but separated from other beings
Individuality, in my belief, is the spark of Purpose we are Created with. Each Spirit is Created for a Purpose and that specific Purpose marks and identifies the individual... Can we see with Clarity of our individual Purpose?
Most likely not and that is the Path of Seeking we undertake to Know Thyself and find Certainty to what the Purpose of our Being/Individuality is.
So I chop wood and carry water.
Well for starters my thoughts are that even though all Fords may look the same, nothing in this universe, not even what seem to be identical man made objects are identically alike. We just cannot see their individuality just like many of us look at ants and see them all as the same, but they too are uniquely individual.
It is hard too, I think to define individuality as it on its own has its own individual definition. Many teenage kids for example may put on dark clothes and pierce their body parts stating "I want to be a unique individual" but to another being they may simply be copying others who have done the same.
All in all I think that it is not about what you wear or what you look like. That can simply be coined "different". Individuality on the other hand is our birth right, we are individual whether we know it or not, what it comes down to is some realize this without having to alter their physical, mental or emotional states and others do not and hence have to look to the outer physical world to fill the void of individuality that they do not realize they already have.
I'm not sure that individuality should be a goal in life.
I think finding your authentic self, being yourself, learning your limits... these things seem like apt goals.
Trying to be more unique seems odd to me. I'd rather be myself. The one with things in common with some people and with wide differences from others.
Trying to be more unique seems... like just another thing insecure people will do to feel better about themselves - rather than find out what they like about themselves, what works, what doesn't work - and going from there.
Individuation is a good idea.
I fail to see how finding something in common with another person could possibly erode my sense of being a person. You are conflating individuality for uniqueness.
People don't need to be unique to be valued. They don't need to be "special" to be accepted or acceptable. We all like to feel a bit... above-the-fray, but generally, to me, that looks insecure.
Certainly in the physical you cannot lose your individuality. All that you experience is slightly different then when any other person experience sit.
It could be the place you experience it, the how you experience it or the where you experience it. Even in situations where on the outside it seems if we have experienced the same thing we do not. Take a plane crash, at any point in that experience no two people occupy the same space and time, therefore no two peoples experiences were the same. Even two people standing side by side are not experiencing exactly the same thing. They may be looking at the same tree however the angles from which they see the tree will be different.
I question the "what, when, where, how, & why" of the exploration & expression of my identity. If what, I find myself lately in various modes of service such as performed at work & in doing chores. If when, I can use percentages or statistics in relation to the other above question words. Anyways, the point being, that these roles of exploration and expression are often a matter of civil service, so to speak. What I mean is that the bulk of the expressions & explorations are worldly or circumstantial. Whatever the employment is, it is often the main event for most of the day, & the majority of the week, except lunch & small breaks. If one is a student, then one is similarly occupied in carrying out duties, especially if one is also working one's way through school. Given that much of many peoples activitys are carried out to meet local conditions, such as the cost of living ( a place to live (rent), food, gas, etc... one may be left wondering what is being explored & expressed. Is this really mine? In short, this is the description of a 'householder', of someone performing worldly duties to make one's way in the world. Basically, in reaction to the literal aspect, I am wondering what that identity is when practically all it's waking hours are spent in occupation of worldly duties? Is that identity mine? Does that constitute one a mere servent doing one's job, if one's whole day is spent working?
What I mean is that, when I am doing something I don't always throw a sense of self into it. Like when a responsibility is being carried out, there is (sometimes, at least) no identification with the activity because that would be a distraction. The work is done, but their is no "their" in it. It can be more like the cliche, "it is doing itself", which is not to say that one is seperate from it.
Adwaita teaches us that separateness is an illusion. Interaction happens, but it is not "I" that is interacting.
Now, that's a tough one to wrap your head around. Obviously I have the experience of interacting, but, according to Adwaita, it's only because "I" identify with the "experiencer". We identify with our personalities, and we identify with our bodies. We separate ourselves from others.
If we can dis-identify, we should experience the bliss of oneness.
"I" am trying my damndest, but "I" can't do it. "You" have to just let it happen.
This reminded me of my Mom, who was always amazed at looking around at all the people she saw - and said:
Isn't it amazing that everyone has two eyes, two ears, one nose and one mouth, yet no one looks exactly like anyone else.'
Add to that all the experiences we absorb as we live, each one seen and incorporated in a totally personal way unique to that person.
To me, that is individuality -
..we are defined, not by what we are, but by what we're not. I am me because you, and everyone else, is not me. It is inevitable that a person share commonalities with others, but when a culture stresses the fact that sameness is vital to maintain the homogenic properties of that culture, the importance of individuality lessens to such a degree that the value of the individual becomes inconsequential...
Our uniqueness in mind and the way we think makes us individuals. I would imagine that even cloned persons would be individuals subject to the influences of differing environments. Their physical form would be identical but each mind will have to evaluate individually, therefore making each unique. Partial loss of individuality may occur during common social interactions, such as a sporting event. However, there are differing aspects of the event to which individual attention is being paid to. While the crowd may be cheering on a team in unison, one fan may be focusing on # 12 while another on # 23 while still another may be noticing the cheerleader section. Individuality is not fixed and can be changed by the individual self, whether there is a desire to do so or there is a significant external experience that dictates that change, such as prisoner of war or terminal illness situation.
Being born in a unique place in the space time continuum makes us grow in unique ways. Even identical twins born into the same family , going to the same school etc., and even cultivating that nebulous characteristic, the twin bond, cannot avoid being unique and having different likes and dislikes. We are potentially at our best when we find ourselves and our own way. The last 300 years of social change has made that not only a possibility but a reality, and yet we seem still keen to stress our collectivity and commonality. This is where we are also potentially at our best in that we might choose to make of our commonality the whole entire human world. A world in which we can share our achievements and our plans.
However we are also at our worse when our individuality prevents us from being part of the community in which we live: an island of selfishness and narsisism. And we are also at our worst when we recognise only a narrow set of commonalities that are parochial, exclusive, and limited to sectional interests. This is most commonly expressed in sports fanaticism, and extended to nationalism, patriotism and religious bigotry. Toleration is of limited use to avoid this destructive characteristic of human kind. I can be tolerant but not of intolerance itself.
"Our uniqueness in mind and the way we think makes us individuals. I would imagine that even cloned persons would be individuals subject to the influences of differing environments."
As twins are clones, yes.
Because identical twins often look almost exactly the same and share the same DNA, people often make the mistake of assuming that identical twins are actually "clones" of one another. In the strictest scientific sense, this is not true, according to Kris Bigalk. http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art1293.asp
Cloning potentially can produce dozens of identical beings but each will be potentially independent in the sense of individualism. The issue is not quantity but the individuality of each entity. As for Identical Twins there are numerous examples of individuality uniqueness.
Excerpt: But even with our genes and backgrounds the same, my sister and I are very different people. Diana is a corporate lawyer; I'm a former magazine editor, now a literary agent. She studied classics at Bryn Mawr; I studied the history of religion at Vassar. She favors clothes that have actual colors in them; I opt for black. She's politically conservative; I'm more liberal. She's a pragmatist; I'm an optimist. We're not the only twins with differences in our family. My father, a writer and former diplomat, had an identical twin brother, Francis, who was a right-brained banker. Francis, who died in 1992, also had identical twin daughters. My cousin Rose is an intense adventurist while her sister Peg is softer and more traditional. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,98967,00.html
Another interesting article: http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfacts/a/twinfingerprint.htm
I am really looking for the root of individuality here. Even identical twins raised in the same environment know that there is a point where one begins and the other ends, and will seek love and attention by instinct, separately from the other. If we do have souls and past lives, chances are that twins are not always born together under similar circumstances, so the twinship would then, not go on indefinitely. What is it that separates us from our fellow man?
I mulled over this with all the free will talk. I've decided to think of individualism on the safest, most apparent level. We are all different because we occupy a different x,y,z coordinate, and inherit a different casualty thread. Sure, it doesn't say much, but it really can't be disagreed with, either.
Two children born at the same age in the same family with the same siblings in the same home going to the same school and sharing a bedroom are NOT raised in exactly the same environment. They were born separately maybe only minutes apart, but they cannot receive exactly the same care, they will already be differentiated due to occupying different positions in the womb, they will occupy different spaces throughout their lives. And even if they cultivate the twin bonding behavior they will never be exactly the same. Subtle differences will multiply under the force of their own determination.
Fits perfectly into my concepts. Although, it should be 'x, y, z, t' in space-time. I believe that that causality thread is just another set of coordinates in the Calabi-Yau involving the given displacement of one's consciousness segment acting within the 3-space of abstracts. Graphically, it might look like a slicer cutting out an area of data-space, or, perhaps more like setting an outline around a group of thoughts. Those coordinates define the individual's thoughts at the moment. But, as it is linked to time through the physical interface, our thinking actually draws out worldlines throughout the dataspace defining our stream of consciousness.
So, individuality is our birthright?
I thought the idea was rather Pat-like when I thought it. I guess I was grouping 't' with the casualty thread.
Back when I had an XT, many of the fun GWBASIC programs asked you to hit a key to generate a random number seed for a pseudo random number generator. Even if I don't have 'true' free will, I feel better that I have a truly unique random number seed. I still haven't given up on being able to 'pop' out of the system occasionally, and maybe be able to fiddle with the abstracts.
I imagine that, with abstracts, quality is more important than quantity. But, at the same time, each worldline path is going to be different anyway. It would be interesting if, in the future, science figures out how to read minds by noting the path of their consciousness through an abstract data field. There's a sci-fi novel for you. Future cops accessing the Calabi- Yau traces of suspects thoughts in order to solve crimes. And the best of criminals having the ability to not think about their own past by constant distraction thus throwing the cops off their scent, as it were. Because only your present thoughts can lead them on the trail backwards. Keeping your present thoughts clean, though, is NOT done by saying to oneself "try to forget about X". By thinking "not(X)" you leave a logical trace to X. And suspects will have to submit to 'CYANOTICS', that's: Calabi-Yau Abstractionary Neuro-Operative Tomographic and Ideographic Computerised Scans. Or something more clever, as that sounds pretty shite. ;-)
Molly you present 3 questions in the primary post, those being: (1) What makes us individuals? (2) Is being an individual the same as being different? (3) When we enjoy our commonalities with others, do we lose our individuality?
(1) My first thought was; Our uniqueness in mind and the way we think makes us individuals. Einstein was more concise with recognition of consciousness and sublimity. Ford however was an individual of his time and presents his quote derived from base experience and knowledge. I feel there are so many other tangent issues that come into play in this search for individuality's roots. Can a persons individuality be the re-emergence of ancestral spirit? This single tangent negates the originality of the individual.
(2) Anyone can be different as difference can easily be attained by a hair style while the individuality remains. Many people assume a multitude of differences but they remain the same individual. Take Michael Jackson as an example as he changed drastically several times throughout his career but he is still the same individual. His individuality was established many years ago, which begs the question; does individuality change?. (3) My opinion is that individuality is uniquely inherent in our being and does not conform to the commonalities of society. Surely we as humans through social mingling assume roles that may not reflect our true individuality but only serve to accommodate a specific instance. Sometimes we as individuals just "go along" with something that is incongruent to the nature of our individualism. We can try to change our individuality through external appearance but that is merely a facade. We the individual, the once established individual, do not change. We can camouflage our individuality but it remains the essence of our individual existence.
There is something to what you say. I feel the heartbeat of the same essential being - the being expressed as the writer today, while having been student, drifter, teacher, wife, mother, activist, prevention specialist, social designer, and corporate executive, at different times of my life. Still, through each, and each seemed to have their own unique identity, I am the same essential individual. If this part does not change, it is absolute. So this part of me is also the part that contains the absolute truths that govern me and everyone else. It would seem that it is here, in the midst of my individuality, that I blend back into oneness with all that is.
Si! es muy verdad!
There is something we attain from looking into someone's eyes as it is said the eyes are the window to the soul. When I look in the mirror I see my individuality in it's raw sense as I'm looking through the same eyes that I have looked through all my life. This represents to me the individual me, the unchanged individual. As you, I have traversed many planes in life while only changing identity for whatever duration required. Today I still retain the idiosyncratic temperaments which are the core of my individuality. In modern day societies having to assume alternative identities is nearly unavoidable as our survival may sometimes be dependent on our identity. I would think that no matter what identity we must assume, as you say we are essentially the same individual. Perhaps with extreme wealth one can let individuality emerge in it's purest form, for there is no need to meld our individuality with identity. It is said, do not judge a book by it's cover, therefore we can never assume a person's individuality based upon their identity. Individuality can sometimes be the best kept secret and sometimes only visible within personal environs. Whether individuality is absolute I would speculate, perhaps the core of individualism is finite but we can attach attributes attained through life experience. Can individuality be lost or subverted? Most certainly.
In my opinion St. Thomas gave the best and shortest description of the individuality. Osho's explanation is great, too.
It means, when we enjoy our commonalities with others it has nothing to do with the lose of our individuality. It is not inevitably connected.
If that is the case, if we lose our individuality by enjoying our commonalities with others it means society has done its work, has given us our mask.
This recalls an old Zen story, about a lion who was brought up by sheep and who thought he was a sheep until an old lion captured him and took him to a pond, where he showed him his own reflection. Many of us are like this lion - the image we have of ourselves comes not from our own direct experience but from the opinions of others. A "personality" imposed from the outside replaces the individuality that could have grown from within. We become just another sheep in the herd, unable to move freely and unconscious of our own true identity.
It's time to take a look at your own reflection in the pond, and make a move to break out of whatever you have been conditioned by others to believe about yourself. Dance, run, jog, do gibberish - whatever is needed to wake up the sleeping lion within.
Osho
I think it is rather how we are as individuals not who we are. If that makes any sense.
The how being, how we treat each other, how we use the gifts that we are given to share. The who, as in trying to be important, greedy, selfish.
Personally, I like digging in the dirt.
Wow, great post. I am changes continually as the I remembers the AM. :-)
When we call nature mother earth, we refer to her in all her variety and splendor, millions of seperate idenities, noticable and discernable on their own. Could humans be that expression of a Central Source?
"No-self" or "oneness with life," or "spiritual experience isn't about no personality or creativity, or expression, etc.
It is just a deeper connection or placement or actualization in life.
Expanded reality, etc.
Personality, creativity, etc, can all still manifest quite alright.
But yea different abilities, qualities, etc can all manifest in different parts of life.
Einstein also said this! :D
"A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive."
Yes, being an individual makes us different one from another. Which is not to say that we don't look/act like one another, especially when we are influenced by others.
We're all just atoms, bumping around. When we see something we like and/or are familiar with we take from others (traits, characteristics, etc).
No one has said that dependant arising or anatman imply you cannot be creative. it simply implies that those are not individual efforts.
If you were a person who actually knew what he was talking about in regards to the teachings above, you would not have merely quoted Einstein, since einstein is obviously not a spiritual teacher or authority on spirituality of anykind. Einstein is really a nobody why do these new age quacks who have no knowledge of actual doctrine continue to quote him as an authority? from now on i will quote mike tyson on spiritual matters
"all is one" - Mike Tyson.
why do you liken the doctrine of anatman "no self" with "spiritual experiences" or oneness with life? the jhanas are one thing, anatman is another altogether. in buddhism spiritual experiences are seen in light of anatman. anatman is the umbrella underwhich these other experiences are interpreted, they do not exist side by side as similar doctrines.
(looks back at what I even wrote :p)
Yea sorry, I don't really memorize doctrines or whatever. I mostly come from direct experience or realization. Then intellect just draws from that and does the best it can with the information that the mind has taken in and shuffled about. I did not mean to demean any sort of bundle of thought!
Yes, I understand. I just mentioned that because a lot of people find things like Mike Tyson's beautiful quote, "all is one," or the realization that all the "I, me, my" mental construction is illusory, as a turn off, because all the abilities and creativity is associated with that construct. I was just pointing out that such qualities that manifest within an "individual" are not lost in any sort of deeper connection to life.
Sorry, I did not mean to put Einstein on a mental pedestal, or create any hierarchies here. I just meant to through in a quote without much attempted manipulation, and just out of being in the moment! :) I'm sure Henry Ford wasn't meant to be put on a mental pedestal as a guru or anything either! Though in a lot of what Einstein wrote on religion and social matters, it is evident that he may have been having a very deep experience, and/or had a lot of "wow" moments that resulted in some deep perspectives and knowledge! That can't be denied!
I'm not too sure about the last part, and I'm not sure what all that means! But attachment to, or if sense of self is identified or invested in any sort of doctrine or stored information, it just limits us! The essence of all religion and doctrine, points to the same place. Some are just better pointers, like Zen, or Taoism, or other Eastern religion. I think I can understand what you mean, in regards to the difference between the three statements that we quoted. But all the philosophy has no basis in reality anyways. Some philosophy is more accurate, as the intellect may been drawn from a deeper experience or awakened state, but studying philosophy or doctrines won't do anything in regards to awakening. All thought is just labels, understandings, and shadows placed onto reality. Shadows!
Shuffling through stored information is always nice though, so in regards to "no-self," and "spiritual experience," what is the Buddhist bundle of thought?
The reason for my original post was to discuss and clarify individuality and Oneness. We look to myriad doctrines for relatedness so that we can better understand our direct experience. We can read the Buddhist teachings and say, yea! This is what I feel. This is what I know. I have been there. Then we can read Einstein's "The World As I See It," which, depending on the edition you are reading, reveals the scientist's deeply spiritual side. We can even read the paper and find a quote from the abominable Mike Tyson about oneness (go figure) and it all lends to our relatedness and quest for understanding.
I would not presume to judge Henry Ford or Einstein or Lenny for who they are or their spirituality as they express it, because if there is no separation, they are me. And yet, we are individuals, each unique but with the golden thread of Oneness running through us. The One and the Many. Where do I begin and you end?
Yes. It's all just egoic breakdown and a deeper wholeness with life. Then one manifests in a state of deeper realization and connectedness to life, and it isn't all "I, me, my." Theres no separate life. We all have different abilities and qualities that manifest in us and go toward the whole of life. With purpose there is no work or retirement. It's not work if one feels purpose in it, and you never retire, because without that "outer doing," there will still be "inner" purpose in life in a new way. Sharing! Living!
Hierarchies dissolve.
All things are connected and progress as one massive influence.
The mentality isn't "mine and yours," or "us and them."
It is of a "connection!"
you come from direct experience or realization? but you know no doctrines? who is your teacher? Even Gopi Krishna who stumbled onto kundalini awakening by creating his own ansanas had a teacher and direction. You quote zen but zen is one of the traditions that actually emphasizes the importance of having a teacher the most.
"Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher's help." -Bodhidharma (founder of Zen Buddhism)
Mike Tyson never made such a quote. The point was to show the ridiculousness of quoting people in areas they are not authorities. I would not quote Mike Tyson on Spiritual matters so why Einstein?.... So, people dont find anything about mike tysons "beautiful quote" that never existed in the first place.
Why are you apologizing to me? do you think i am frail? i think that your apologies are a reflection of just how fragile you are as a person. This is why i despise western buddhism because it is full of woo woos who have read too much DT Suzuki, who go around quoting zen proverbs and think they have found enlightenment then go to their jobs at whole foods afterwards. Buddhism in the west has become infested with sissies who are afraid to hurt each other feelings. These people are too timid for truth. they dont want it, they dont have the balls.
doctrines actually give us insights, but you are right it can create margins of limitation at times. If the doctrins of old are not true you may as well stop studying spirituality of anykind right now since it is all crap. Get a good job and get married.
Please read your third paragraph again and notice how you have analyzed yourself into insanity. You have forsaken all practical thought with ideas that "philosophy has no basis on reality"? Your intellect is not drawn to a more awakened state by studying philosophy, you will just be a person who is good at philosophy by studying it. Awakening is nothing more than bringing your kundalini to your crown and experiencing your oneness with the universe first hand.
Hey again.
No I am alright! :)
It just seemed as if you were bothered by something I said. Maybe the tone I perceived wasn't accurate. The internet blows for that...
Ok fine, I put a bit of sarcasm in it. :)
Ok, no more quoting.....
Thought doesn't have concreteness in reality at all! It can be accurate shadows and labels, but nothing more.... Animal mind is never awake... Shadows. "The apple falls down," is a shadow of reality... Mind has taken in all sorts of stored information about doctrines and has all sorts of bundles of thought, I can relate to them all, and many of them can be perfectly placed upon experience or direct realization, and interchanged. But none of them are it! Haha!
So, I know all doctrines! LoL They are doctrines! Haha!
We don't have any doctrines.. They have us. LoL
"If the doctrins of old are not true you may as well stop studying spirituality of anykind right now since it is all crap. Get a good job and get married."
No they aren't true. Just shadows and labels. Some, of course are accurate... Science and philosophy is quite supportive of what is labeled as being "spiritual." You see them as "true?" You don't know any doctrines then!
Studying spirituality? So spirituality is philosophy? Hmmm.
"Your intellect is not drawn to a more awakened state by studying philosophy, you will just be a person who is good at philosophy by studying it. Awakening is nothing more than bringing your kundalini to your crown and experiencing your oneness with the universe first hand."
Hey! Hey! :) Here we go!
Did I hurt you feelings? :D
How can it be?
There is no "we" to either be at odds or at evens.
There is just "that" sporting as a "questioning jufa" as well as an "answering zorba".......
Simultaneously.
We live in a catch 22 situation. It is a situation which began for us the exact moment of our conception. It is a situation which placed us in a bubble within a bubble, within a bubble, within a bubble, within a bubble, which we ("she is the I Am of them, Them is the I Am of they, They is the I Am of us, Us is the I Am of we" Consciousness is the singularity of the whole, and the whole is the collectiveness of singularity) inherited from our parents, who inherited from their parents going back beyond the cords of memory. One thing is sure, however, no human being is the beginning of self, and therefore, no human being is responsible for the principles and patterns they have inherited through DNA. They are responsible, however, for that which they have added too, and substracted from the principles and patterns of knowledge they have received.
At conception we are indoctrinated with a universal human belief system which find formation as we develop as a fetus dependent on DNA, water, and the life of our mother. We begin our entrance into life as the change of structure which the DNA of the universal human consciousness builds upon, while we were still water creatures. Complete domination, of our universal indoctrination by our inherited DNA code, takes place the exact moment we exit the womb and absorb our own unique individual Spirit of life and Eyes of Comprehension with the taking of our first breath. That uniquiness is the form the earth took and shaped itself to be our outer form temporarily, before it returned to its first love, and original habitat. . .the dust of the ground.
Instantly we, individualized but tired together in this realm of being by the umbilical cord called I AM, became selfish individuals, and as our universal human indoctrination found compounding factors to insure it's temporary existence--such as our parents teaching us of the two sided coin of aloneness and fear--we became possessive selfish individuals. So we sat out on a journey to find security, believing that our minds were a creative power which would carry us up and beyond our predecessors. So we reached out to the utmost parts of our consciousness, and there we found everywhere we went in height, breadth, and length, we could not shed the robe of aloneness and fear.
At times, from somewhere within us beyond our comprehension, a light came on in us and we realized there is Something beyond our words and knowledge of this world. Something much greater than ourselves; but then there is the fear and aloneness; the pain we feel, and joy we revel in; the need to survive by working to acquire the good life by the sweat of our brow. So we bury ourselves in what we feel, learn, and grasp of intelligence; never making the carry-over that that which we feel, learn, and grasp are all one of the entity named thought. In order for our bodies to feel, our emotions to flow, our learning to stick, and our minds to grasp anything, there must be a corresponding element in our consciousness in order for relativity to be relative.
But in all this, we never realize, thus never understand, there is no power in the human mind; the human imagination; the human thought process in and of themselves. The Source of power in the human realm is the Source of power in all realms, and that Source of power is that of infinite Consciousness, or Life. The Source of power in our human mind is the mind's awareness of that Life. The Source of power in our human imagination are the mental images our minds have projected into our imaginatiion, and our imagination label with false visual pictures of that Life. And the Source of power in our human thought process stems from all the varieties of false visual pictures of that Life, which become the interpreted thought pattern of our psychic.
Our catch 22 is the bubble which our human minds have formed; which mind we use to reach the utmost point of the bubble in the belief we can burst through it and move into a deeper realm of Being, only to find we cannot because of death. . .Because the earth reclaim its substance, we fall subject victims to the recycling of the universal parenthesis we sought to escape previously by using the natural laws of human intellect, which we now find ourselves, after being recycled in the bubble of humanism because we transcended not our human psychic, once again climbing up the steps of our human words and knowledge of this world to reach the utmost parts of the bubble.
This happens because, while we were yet in the draping of the earth, we failed to present and manifest the truth to our generation that would break through the bubble of humanism, we had to shed the universal human mentality of thought in order for the Spirit of Life, and Eyes of comprehension to reclaim the Soul; in order for the Spirit of Life, and Eyes of comprehension to endlessly direct us in their's ways; "not in words which man wisdom teaches, but which the whole Spirit teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual."
Now we are aware of the truth, because we have in the midst of our Beings that Source which is the Substance and Essence of "thy word is truth." But awareness of truth, and acknowledgement of truth are two different things. Awareness of truth means we have retained truth only in our consciousness; acknowledgement of truth is the pin which pricks our inner conscience, and prompts us to take action to fulfill our lives by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of Consciousness."
To live otherwise covers our understanding of the knowledge of Consciousness. It keeps us from realizing it is our minds which has introduced all human weakness and strength, sickness and health, provery and wealth, war and peace, good and evil intent into our lives. To live otherwise keeps us from realizing that our minds, which commenced our joys and pains, is the same mind engaged to find the solution to end the two sided coin of aloneness and fear. Our catch 22 is it is our minds continuously building on that which it is seeking to overcome; mind battling mind.
We all serve and worship the exact same thing..........AND THAT IS AN IDEA. There is no SUB TERRAINS to IDEA, just as there are no heavenly heights, there is only the IDEA. Where we take that IDEA, in our bubble, does not negate the truth that it is the IDEA which encircles the bubble, and when we break through the bubble of our ignorance, we'll realize the limits were the ceiling of the bubble of ignorance.
The IDEA is the dream. Dreaming is the activity of the IDEA. The dreamer is the carrier of the IDEA, but if this is not known, then the dream becomes the bubble of illusion of ignorance we have enslaved ourselves in by thinking the bubble is all there is.
The Eye of Comprehension can never see a reflection of Itself, for what is there to reflect off of but Itself. So the eye does look in on Itself, because there in nowhere else to look too.
Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength
..we know what life consists of, but what it Ãs exactly? Death is still a mystery too. Do you have any idea?
you just step out of your body when it is no longer useful to you, & make do without it.
Entity of pure energy, that sounds nice
Time space mass are all relative.
ie
This is bigger/ smaller compared to?
Decaytime/growthtime of this is longer/shorter compared to?
The universe as i,you experience it and provided that you can take aboard how
science has mapped it out so far, it is the universe as i know it
and understand it that it is essential fractallic.
This means that the only correct concept for eternity and hence conception of soul-life thus far i can think of is the fractal.
The socalled birth of a universe where sentitient/intelligent life is possible comes from a hadron collider.
Each hadron contains the entire universe and when two are brought into collision a copy of the existing universe is brought into existence, hence with conception and materialization of the LHC man now has a key to understand the UNIVERSE as it is now as the MULTIVERSE
and reponder his/her responsiblity.
..tja, and that is why life and death are ideas...
In numerology there is a so called personality which is a kind of mask, in both direction. It is a selective, I would say manipulative personal choice for presentation(personal publicity) that serves a person to be accpeted and it is also a kind of a measure how others percieve us.
This aspect actually "serves" a person to get a security in exploration of the true being(individuality, or heart of the person). Of course, this double face presentation is more important to people who care very much about opinion of others. Those, lonely wolves, not scared to swim against water, they write another kind of stories. They have their eyes open but with their way they are able to help somebody else to open the eyes too.
"Blind is the one who doesn´t want to see"
this is really a nice blog
Wow, what a bunch of thoughts. Each has some value and thus your post awake me(urged to respond in spite of the fact that it would be quite hard to do while writing with the dictionary in hand)Thank you.
In some sense, yes, we all are different, but our different fingertips interest just the police.
What is worthy indeed is the recognition of ourselves in others. That not puts us all in the same mold, but makes our individualities blossom out with just incredible light.
In short, Thanks again for the inspired desire to open my mouth, to break the silence.
While walking along the coast we all leave footmarks on the sand, yet all these prints differ between in the depth- the depth of steps we leave in life depends on our love to other.
Post a Comment