On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 10:18:43 -0700, Crowfoot <pagemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>In article <5b40r29eg60jg9786813n3sstrps2t17l5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Jyeshta <whatever@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 15:21:52 -0700, Crowfoot <pagemail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Now yer talking; but I think how it works is that you
>> >> >have to come to *accept and embrace* the wretched
>> >> >place, horrors and all, before you are qualified to *leave
>> >> >it behind forever*.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sounds just like life, doesn't it?
>> >>
>> >> Well, in earth life, you don't have to accept and embrace the world,
>> >> do you? I mean, in any hypothetical particular incarnation.
>> >
>> >No, and most of us don't; but I believe that your last life on
>> >this planet and in physical form is the one in which you do in
>> >fact come to the place at which you accept and embrace the
>> >whole shebang, horrors and all. Maybe acceptance means no
>> >longer being *engaged* with it, so that there's nothing to draw
>> >you back here: been here, done it, given it all a hug and a tear,
>> >and moved on out, says the T ****rt.
>>
>> In that case, I feel that I have reached the acceptance stage.
>
>If you have, I am envious! I get way too angry about stuff to
>imagine myself in that longed-for place.
>
>> I am not at all engaged with earthly life.
>
>Hmm. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "engaged" that
>way. I think acceptance of the kind I'm talking about means
>engagement *without* judgmentalism; you just take it as it
>comes and deal with it, you don't step back and *avoid* it to
>avoid engagement (I'm not saying that's what you're talking
>about re yourself, only that I'm concerned with a word that I
>think I've used in a misleading way). You step forward and
>take it all in, because it's your last time, you're about to leave
>it all behind -- so it's all precious if only in its sheer physicality.
>I have a couple of friends who use spirituality to detach
>themselves from engagement, which isn't what I'm trying to
>get at: maybe because the first "religious" reading I did as an
>adult that really caught me up was about Zen Buddhism, and
>I think I've kept that idea of detachment + vivid presence
>and habitation of the "now" as the ultimate goal in the physical
>world. At that point, you're free to go (or stay) as you choose,
>and most go.
>
>> I think I took acceptance to
>> mean being all right with all the horrors - but actually it is. I
>> guess. I think you do have to feel only compassion for the murderers,
>> etc. Anger and outrage and suchlike mean one's still engaged with the
>> world, in which case I am. And maybe even compassion is unnecessary.
>> I don't know.
>
>Yeah, see above -- it seems to be a sort of intense suspension
>between deep involvement and the detachment of perspective,
>and I think that everyone who's been around a few (hundred!)
>times has had glimpses, moments of it, and so has an inkling of
>what it is when you do in fact get there.
>
>> >And because we are old, old comrades-in-arms and in everything
>> >else with them, we say yes, and then we go around connecting
>> >up with other friends for stuff we want to get done ourselves, and
>> >meantime we realize that we can't *remember* what fresh-
>> >squeezed orange juice or fine Belgian chocolate or smoked bacon
>> >actually *tastes* like, only that it was unbearably wonderful, and
>> >so was running in a strong, healthy body (and all that other stuff
>> >we do in those bodies), and next thing you know, we're ready to
>> >jump back in.
>>
>> Yes, I pretty much agree with all that, in theory. I really don't
>> know what I believe, except that, due to certain experiences I've had,
>> I believe the soul survives physical death.
>
>Do you feel you can elaborate on that a little? I don't
>want to pry, I'm just curious.
I'm sorry I haven't replied to you sooner. It was simply that your
tone was that of teacher to pupil, and it annoyed me. This is the
first time that I have looked at your reply.
I've had experiences of contact with loved ones after they have passed
away. At least three of them with my best friend who passed in '91 -
but they stopped around two or three years after his passing. I
suppose he became busy with new things he was doing in his spirit life
and became detached from the physical world and his loved ones here.
I had two contact experiences from my father after he passed in '94.
The second one of those occurred on the anniversary of his passing.
And I had one contact experience with the love of my life, my beloved
cat of twenty-one years, a few days after her passing.
I prefer not to be specific about the nature of these contact
experiences because they contain content that was shared privately
between me and each different loved one.
>> >You didn't think we did all this stuff *alone*, did you? Every
>> >last one of us has old friends all over the world (and out of the
>> >world too, of course).
>>
>> No, I didn't think that at all. I'm an astrologer. I've been taught
>> we choose our own charts, pick our own parents, have hordes of soul
>> mates with whom we make deals and arrangements for each incarnation,
>
>Great, we're on the same page there. I only raised the issue
>because in this culture we're so soundly indoctrinated with
>the idea of our essential solitude that a lot of people think it's
>true.
>
>> I just don't know what I truly believe right now.
>
>Yeah; we all have our moments. Sometimes all it takes is a
>glance at the morning paper . . .
>
>> >My info is that we all get back; we are what that consciousness is
>> >made up of, dispersed into the universe, and that consciousness
>> >is not whole again until every last scrap comes home, no matter
>> >how long it takes. After all, we've got eternity; there is no meter
>> >running.
>>
>> Maybe there is (a meter running).
>
>Maybe there is! But then -- who's driving the damn cab? <ggg>
That is the question. :-)
>> What is eternity, and how much of it is reliant on matter?
>> None of it? In that case, it doesn't matter that the universe is
>> expanding and... what's supposed to happen?
>
>You've got me; but I incline toward the idea that everything is
>basically energy, and that "matter" is just more or less tightly
>clotted energy that's lumped together to slow it all down, introduce
>"time", and create "form". You know that Indian idea about how
>it's all a dance that God-ness makes to entertain itself? I like that
>part, too, although it becomes morally indefensible when people
>bring up something like the Rwanda genocide or any kind of
>specific suffering. Still, I think it's as true as most other ideas
>about all this, truer than most. On the other hand, as a writer of
>stories I'm used to the idea of pain and suffering as positive parts
>of an interesting plot (think of opera, or of crime novels or war
>stories!).
>
>> It will implode or something? I forget.
>
>Turn inside out and start again as a new universe? Forever and
>ever, amen or no amen?
Well, but my point was, in this incredibly vast universe, there are
millions or billions of planets, physical life must abound, and at
what stages are they in their journeys? Every scrap of us includes
them and I am not at all sure that every physical life entity will be
completed with their journeys by the time a new universe could be
created - and then what? We start all over again? Sounds horrendous!
>> But by that time, will every
>> scrap of us have finished? Will we all get home before there's no
>> more physical universe to finish up our business within?
>
>My sense of form tells me, yes. *Real* "meaninglessness* for me
>would be an end without time for resolution, but I take the concept
>of "eternity" to mean, time "enough" for all of it.
All right - I'm not sure there will be enough time. And even if there
were, it is beyond me to imagine what would be the ultimate
culmination - what we would do next.
>> >Exactly; I think it looks unimaginably different from out there.
>> >I only try imagining it because I'm a fiction writer, and that's
>> >my skill. But I'm still just blowing smoke rings about all this,
>> >just like everybody else. Which is another one of those
>> >enjoyable things you can only do while you're *here*, isn't it?
>>
>> Maybe, but I'd definitely rather be *there*.
>>
>> >C
>
>I know the feeling, and have it often myself.
>
>Crowfoot
What you said in a prior post, about the urge to experience
physicality - to be able to run in a strong body - many cannot! To
taste favorite foods again - I believe all one need do is remember it
and the taste is experienced. I don't believe at all that the
prospect of physicality is attractive to the older discarnate soul or
entity.
In any case, you didn't seem so condescending this time, and I
appreciate that.
|
