What does "bashing" mean, per forum rules

First topic message reminder :

[Admin note: this topic was split in order to allow the thread "Assessment by FaithTrust" to continue on-topic. Although this thread shows cmpnwtr as the "Author", this is a function of the forum software since his post was the first to be split.]

glorfindel wrote:

It seems that their founder is a "Reverend" in the United Church of Christ which certainly seems to be less ignorant than other Christian groups.

I find it objectionable and disrespectful to characterize the adherents of an entire religious tradition as "ignorant" and believe it violates the spirit and possibly the letter of the rules of this forum. Your remarks here are entirely outside the issue of the appropriateness of this organization being used to assess the OBC.

one stands up one bows

Bows......tea !

Michael, Stan, and Ol'ga--great conversation the One is having with itself!

And Ol'ga, you ask what is probably the most important ontological question that arises from experience of the transcendent: (For any of you who do not have reason to engage in ontological conversation on a daily basis, Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being and the nature of reality--both manifested and prior to all manifestation).

Olga wrote:

"Hi Michael, as you say,

I like All is one [because it is empty of duality or individual ego]

There is still duality (multiplicity) to account for; and, after all, the 'individual ego', if you will, whose name is Michael Hughes, who has a certain date of birth, a holder of a passport, etc, my friend, and contributor to this forum. And so one has to sort out the "relationship" between the empty One (in my vocabulary, One without a second), and this individual who is most definitely there. How is there One, and still many, and where do I come in. Clearly, I cannot be my own illusion.
O."

So, how can multiplicity manifest from that which is empty, nondual, infinite, eternal, Awareness? How can there be many separate selves when we are nothing but empty awareness? (I propose, as I believe Ol'ga, you have similarly proposed earlier, that if the empty all-is-one were not awareness, it could not be experienced and reported). How can the paradox of all is one, and all is different, even exist??

Easy. In fact, I would go so far as to say self-evident. (As is the sound of one hand clapping!) The universe, including individual being, arises and unfolds from empty, unborn, undying, awareness itself--because it wants to.

Desire itself is not only inherent as potential within empty oneness itself, but a facet of awareness itself. Without desire, the universe would not exist, and the all-is-different would not arise from, return to, and remain always inseparable within, the all-is-one. (Or as some prefer to express it, the nondual, or not-two, since "oneness", as a concept, is still a form of duality.)

(On this point, and as an aside, I would say that if desire is an inherent facet of awareness itself (as I hypothesize and propose)--the concept that spiritual practice should somehow entail the "cessation of all desire", is not only profoundly misguided, but always guaranteed to fail!)

Modern physics now gives us the methodology, a variety of hypotheses, some theory, and the language to correlate our "inner" mystical experience of the unfolding of empty oneness as the universe--with our "outer" perception and experience of the ever unfolding dance of all things--as space-time-energy-mass. Once the separation dissolves, so too, does "inner" and "outer", subject and object, self and other, us and them, life and death.

But--where is my tea cup?

Enjoy your cuupa you deserve it after that, and did you ever find that apple under your bed 38 years ago

Michael. To have an illusion, you must first exist. You can have an illusion that you're the Queen Victoria; but you cannot have an illusion of your own existence, because your existence predates your illusion, or at least any illusion of yours presupposes your existence. So the illusion cannot be the basis, ground of a being who has this illusion.
Stan, I think in English the word 'there' is frequently used without referencing any particular location. E.g. 'Is there a doctor in the house?'. Since, in that sentence, the adverbial clause 'in the house' clearly denotes a location, the 'there' is purely idiomatic, and has no semantic content. When I wrote, 'You are there very much', I meant, 'You definitely exist'. Now, who is this 'you', what is your nature, is a big question. The answer to that makes quite some difference in our lives. I would say that you are an individual (and I don't consider the 'individual' an illusion - any more, than I consider a carrot to be one); the marvel is, that you're more than that individual; and, though the individual changes, is located in time and place, has various aches and pains, etc, you're simultaneously a witness of all that, and if you 'press' the 'who' of the witness far enough, you will discover that 'he' resolves in awareness.

Kozan, you wrote:
Once the separation dissolves, so too, does "inner" and "outer",
subject and object, self and other, us and them, life and death.
I am sure that you did not mean this 'dissolving' as anything that is the condition of the One 'arising'. (Lots of people think that!) It is a matter of seeing that all the opposites exist in awareness, while awareness is not affected by them, not pulled about like toffee, or chopped up into some gridwork. (Roshi writes something about consciously discarding the oppossites during her third kensho. I can't now ask her what the bleeding hell for! Surely the whole point is that opposites are not the problem, as the samsara is not either.)
(I occasional write One with the capital 'O'. This is purely to make clear what I am talking about. The 'One' is not sacred or mystical, and so the capital letter can be misunderstood.
Kozan, as to the desire that gave rise to the multiplicity - this sounds very much like Hinduism, where Maya, the creative power, resides in Brahman, depends on Brahman, but Brahman is not thereby changed. Maya does not become some kind of a second thing to Brahman (the One, if you will).....which is you, by the way. Just a little aside.

As to your coup of tea, Kozan, I presume the cup is by now empty, and the tea is in your tummy, on its way to the wide blue sea.
Ol'ga

Michael--I'd almost forgotten--that apple! ;-)

Ol'ga, you wrote:

Kozan, you wrote:
Once the separation dissolves, so too, does "inner" and "outer",
subject and object, self and other, us and them, life and death.
[color=green]I am sure that you did not mean this 'dissolving' as anything that is the condition of the One 'arising'. (Lots of people think that!) It is a matter of seeing that all the opposites exist in awareness, while awareness is not affected by them, not pulled about like toffee, or chopped up into some gridwork.

Ol'ga, very well said. And you are correct. I meant "dissolving" to refer to the illusion of separation. Manifested existence is, as you say, not an illusion! The illusion is the separation that obscures the recognition that there is no separation between transient form and that which remains unchanging, from which all things arise.

Kozan, as to the desire that gave rise to the multiplicity - this sounds very much like Hinduism, where Maya, the creative power, resides in Brahman, depends on Brahman, but Brahman is not thereby changed. Maya does not become some kind of a second thing to Brahman (the One, if you will).....which is you, by the way. Just a little aside.

Indeed so, as are we all, and everything else. And, the desire that gives rise to existence, is identical in nature to the desire that leads me to seek a cup of tea (well, actually two) every morning.

Hi Ol`ga,

I think I know where you`re coming from....I was having a little fun in asking
where is the "there" as it brings up all the other questions.

You say your meaning was that I "definitely exist" but when I try to find a
definitely existing `I`, I cannot locate one....never could and I`ve tried !

You say "who is this" I ? and it is synonymous with my true nature. I take this to mean that an investigation into this "who am I" ultimately results in my
initial sense of being a "witness" "resolves in awareness". I`m assuming here
that you mean` witness` is awareness with `I` consciousness and the final
`awareness` is pure unlimited awareness. So far so good if I understand.

The obvious next question is ...How do I know ? What is aware of limitless
awareness. Is there a knower ? It cannot all be reduced to nothing as
nothing knows nothing.
This final limitless awareness, is it then permanent ? If kensho can give this
awareness, why does the `peak` experience tend to fade ?

You say to Kozan that it is a " matter of seeing that all the opposites exist
in awareness , while awareness is not affected by them". A `major` Kensho
can lead to this discovery but it is still only realisation of the self and occurs
in time. Most Buddhist teachings get this far and then it gets pretty vague.

I know you are no longer a Buddhist student and Advaita Vedanta is your
choice of vehicle so to speak. However, Both Buddhism and Vedanta speak of
` Liberation` so I would like to ask, What is it that ensures Liberation or
enlightenment . The problem being that if ultimate undivided awareness can
only be experienced in an elevated state, what happens to it when the mind
is not elevated.....as in everyday mind ?

Off to bed now, it`s late and my brain is shutting down.
I do hope hubby is getting better and things are improving for you.

Stan.

Ahh, Stan, too much thinking! ;-)

(I mean this in a very good natured way--I am all in favor of thinking about these issues!)

Best Regards,
Kozan

Kozan, I would like to add something - you probably will agree, some others will disagree, but it doesn't matter at all.

Deeper awareness of the present moment, or shallow awareness, is the same awareness.
Mystical experience, or mundane experience, is the same awareness.
No special experience is needed (and might not be all that very helpful); what is needed is to see, that you are awareness, I am awareness, the one awareness.

Racing cars give one a thrill - there is then total silence inside. This is what the racer seeks, the silence. We seek the silence all the time, not knowing that nothing is needed - we are silence.

It's such a pity to undergo an arduous religious practice to get where we already are, and never were anywhere else. All here, all there, all now, all yesterday and tomorrow, all forms, colours, thoughts, holiness, and wrong action, are in us. We permeate them all, they take their existence from us, from you, from me; while you, I, are not touched by any of it.

This is something to see and to see again. It's not boring, good grief! Nothing is more fun than this.
Ol'ga

Stan jost posted the following, as I was about to post the above:
The problem being that if ultimate undivided awareness can only be
experienced in an elevated state, what happens to it when the mind is
not elevated.....as in everyday mind ?
Interesting, we were on the same ground, but not on the same ground.
My friend Stan, if anybody tells you about ultimate undivided awareness, and an elevated state, run the other way the fastest you can. It is utter bullscat, please.
I'll try to respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.
By the way, I know Chinmayananda quite well. He did not teach Advaita Vedanta in fact. It was much more like yoga.
Anyway, you're probably in the realm of dreams now. May all the angels watch over you, flap flap.
O.

Kozan & friends

I've had a bit of a spiritual catch 22 for 38 years that remains beyond my ken and makes me a bit of a wet blanket but perhaps the people here can shine some light on it.

I have met folks who speak with almost unearthly eloquence of the meditative minutia of spiritual exploration and discovery. What confuses me is that many of these same folks have also displayed huge degrees of real time socially stunted behaviour. To my eye what enabled them the phenomenal focus and concentration to dissect and analyze so much of the religious experience and yet remain so personally unbalanced, arose from a compartmentalization of their brain.

Their involvement in the analysis itself seemed to actually solidify those mental boundarys like an ego would support it's own source of strength.

This has led me to value an open meditative balance over the depth of analytical insight everytime but since I already have my own anti intellectual leanings, it makes my conclusions questionable.

How does one nurture analytical spiritual insight that can be seen, digested and demonstrated in daily life instead of having it inveigle itself into a stronger sense of ego like I think I've seen happen so many other times?

Cheers

Ah! the ontological question the Cartesian answer to the personal form was of course:' I think therefore I am' but as has been pointed out, not least by Hume, all you can actually say is: 'I think therefore there is' (idiomatic there there again Ol'ga, haha but which one there!). The universal form of the question is of course even more problematic. If cause an effect is true, that is to say for every effect there must be a cause, there can be no existence. As there is existence then there must be at least one effect without a cause. This undermines the laws of physics which are postulated on universal cause and effect, even at the quantum level. There the equations are purely deterministic it is only the crystallisation that has the appearance of indeterminacy. And this does not even begin to touch on the 'my' experience of existence, which modern neuroscience has shown is full of anomalies and inventions. But now I fear it's way past my bedtime and I must go and pass out of any conscious experience of existence to be reborn anew in the morning. If I don't go now my wife will ensure that my passing from experiencing existence will be permanent - good night gentles all.

Howard, you wrote:

Kozan & friends

I've had a bit of a spiritual catch 22 for 38 years that remains beyond my ken and makes me a bit of a wet blanket but perhaps the folks here can shine some light on it.

I have met folks who speak with almost unearthly eloquence of the meditative minutia of spiritual exploration and discovery. What confuses me is that many of these same folks have also displayed huge degrees of real time socially stunted behaviour. To my eye what enabled them the phenomenal focus and concentration to dissect and analyze so much of the religious experience and yet remain so personally unbalanced, arose from a compartmentalization of their brain.

Their involvement in the analysis itself seemed to actually solidify those mental boundarys like an ego would support it's own source of strength.

This has led me to value an open meditative balance over the depth of analytical insight everytime but since I already have my own anti intellectual leanings, it makes my conclusions questionable.

How does one nurture analytical spiritual insight that can be seen, digested and demonstrated in daily life instead of having it inveigle itself into a stronger sense of ego like I think I've seen happen so many other times?

Cheers

Howard, excellent observations. I think that meditation practice framed as an adversarial struggle against the self, which is the way spiritual practice seems to be understood in all too many traditions, leads to a frequent failure to heal existential trauma--and precisely the kind of partitioning you refer to.

I think that your question itself displays, and reveals, a keenly incisive intellect!

I would also say (with bias)--because it is my own methodology--that if meditative experience is not the basis for intellectual reflection, then the exercise is probably of questionable value.

And finally, I think the crux of the matter is to not take our own intellectual constructs too seriously--and to pose them as hypotheses for consideration.

I have come to believe that all scientific theory, logical argument, and spiritual teaching, should be considered as hypothesis--as a proposal for consideration, for multiple reasons. Forinstance, even if the understanding is accurate, the way it is articulated is still subject to personal and culturally conditioned bias. This is further compounded by the fact that the way in which others perceive and understand the original articulation may be subtley or dramatically different from the original intent.

In any case, all of this actually comes down, not to "knowledge", but to understanding--which no one else can provide for us. Understanding is something that only we can craft for ourselves.

I can only hope that the quest for understanding will proliferate. What could possibly be more fun than this (to paraphrase Ol'ga)?! Even the youngest infant is so engaged--continuously!!

This is a short, summarized, incomplete response to your excellent question. I can imagine an ongoing discussion here!

Mark, wonderful thoughts, which I will have to come back to tomorrow, as I am now reaching brain exhaustion.

In response to Rene Descartes' famous dictum--"I think, therefore I am", I would have to say that he got it upside down and backwards--except as a description of ego-formation! In terms of being itself, I think it would be more acurate to say, I am, therefore, I think!

Anon!

Howard,

One can have profound meditative insight in which one sees past the ego. As you know, at that point, opposites collapse and awareness and its object are one and the same. In this state ones karma is dormant, but one has not necessarily seen all the ins and outs of it, all of its machinations and trickery. So when the karma reawakens, and we get lost again in ego, all those dysfunctional patterns reemerge. This does not make the experience or the retained intellectual knowledge of it invalid. But the retained knowledge has little to do with the fullness of the reality it describes. So one can go on and on about the description of reality, while the day to day karma that provides the illusion of separation and the dysfunction of behavior merrily reeks havoc.



What can happen from there is that the ego boost one can get from having had "the experience" allows one to interpret negative actions as enlightened ones. After all I did the action, I had the "experience," I'm the one who sees clearly, therefore I must be using skillful means. It's just that the [banned term] I'm dealing with is too unenlightened to see it. The Gerk.



So if there is any friction between you and another, the best assumption is that you're playing a part in it, and your main task is to find out what that is and how you can handle yourself better. If you don't investigate your actions and motives and karmic patterns, you might assume your acting more purely because you've had the "experience." Compare that with what we've seen from Eko. Compare that with Laura going to Meian with concerns about Eko. Compare that with Rev. Kennett's over use of "being cruel to be kind." The "enlightened" person must be correct. But why? Because there is an assumption, whether they admit it or not, that the person with the "experience" must be seeing more clearly.



Maybe; maybe not.

Further thoughts:

If we spend more time investigating our spiritual experience than we are investigating what is our part in why we're at odds with the people around us, we're most likely heading in the wrong direction.

Kozan, Descartes dictum was not meant as a description. He was looking for an indisputable fact / idea, a solid rock from which to build his philosophy. If I remember correctly the only fact that he could come up with was 'I think', from which he deduced his own existence. I would not entirely agree with him, but I'll leave that for another day. When you say 'I am therefore I think' it looks to me as if you are looking at something slightly different. You assume your existence as the base reality with thinking as the outcome of your existence a process view as opposed to the Cartesian deductive / inductive logic view. You pays your money and you takes your choice. Reality itself remains beyond our reach in any case. We may as I believe, or may not, come closest to the direct experience of reality through meditation, mindfulness and enlightenment. Even this is just dualistic words that of course miss the point (whilst of course in some sense being it!)

Howard you are right, all this 'meditative minutia of spiritual exploration and discovery' can be a way of 'solidify(ing) those mental boundarys like an ego' and the 'open meditative balance' is the important matter. However we all have pastimes, but we shouldn't think they are the be all and end all. Some of us like lying on cold stony beaches in our tents and brown underpants with our toes being nibbled by bears, and others of us prefer to sit by log fires with a cup of tea and think about the nature of things. ( Actually I like both to the extent that my knees allow.. well perhaps not the nibbled toes bit!)

Kozan

I think that meditation practice framed as an adversarial struggle against the self, which is the way spiritual practise seems to be understood in all too many traditions, leads to a frequent failure to heal existential trauma--and precisely the kind of partitioning you refer to.

Conditioned binary (+/-) adversarial struggle responses do seem to be the engine of our own dis function. The bright side of such a view is that it could simplify a practise to just the consistent effort of fostering an ever widening heart & mind.

Oh yeah but just once I'd like to see "simple" walking the path without its buddy "hard" tagging along like a shadow.



I have come to believe that all scientific theory, logical argument, and spiritual teaching, should be considered as hypothesis-



You mean applying the law "that everything changes" to everything! Talk about scaring the horses, going native and taking this training stuff way too seriously. You are not only threatening the property values in the monastic neighbourhoods but might be finishing the Asprin approach to training. Questions could start being applied to anything??? Adults might start showing up in master/disciple/ teaching/student relationships or even on my own zafu!..

....Nice!.



And finally, I think the crux of the matter is to not take our own intellectual constructs too seriously--and to pose them as hypotheses for consideration.



Abandoning our identity crampons on the slippery slope of intellectual constructs? Presenting ideas in a way that allow others to let go as well. I'd stick out my thumb for that ride..



Thanks Kozan

I have a complaint:

This thread was supposed to be dedicated to "bashing" Christians (or at least discussion of the acceptability of that activity). And you lot have started enthusing about awesome stuff instead........

Where did all this awesomeness in multiple threads suddenly erupt from?

Is it coz Henry is back?

Glorfindel, sounds like a good hypothesis to me! ;-)

Glori your right we have got abit away from bashing. Now what ws it we were supposed to bashing Mmm... was it monkeys?

Mark et al--



So Rene Descartes walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Hey buddy, you want a beer?" Descartes says "I think not," and disappears.

"There was this magnificent mathematical horse. You could teach it
arithmetic, which it learned with no difficulty, algebra was a breeze,
it could even prove theorems in euclidean geometry, but when you tried
to teach it analytic geometry, it would rear back on its hind legs, kick
ferociously neigh loudly and make violent head motions in resistance.

The moral of this story is that you can't put Descartes before the horse."

We are sorry to interupt this thread for another interuption in response to a previous interuption.

Christians and gladiators are asked not to smoke during the intermission.

Anyone wishing a posting refund can contact Henry directly.

Hey Henry

If we spend more time investigating our spiritual experience than we are investigating what is our part in why we're at odds with the people around us, we're most likely heading in the wrong direction.

Thanks for the pointers. I agree, with some qualifications. (I do have a gas fitters ticket)

I have not found that the investigation of a spiritual experience to be very helpful within any medium other than meditation. I am not sure that I would even call such a thing an investigation. I think that the deliberateness of an examination of a spiritual experience is almost always for the egos account for I've seldom seen a spiritual experience in itself that ever needed anything added to it. (Past life experiences are the exception).

I'll complicate it all by saying that meditation that is directed by personal interests or avoidance is not really a meditation at all but might better be described as a focus or concentration exercise. The point of this distinction is that if the compartmentalization (partitioning) of the brain of a meditating practitioner isolates or prevents the integration of the spiritual experience from the rest of ones life and that directed concentration is not being mistaken for meditation then I think your professional services are in order.



Cheers

Hi Howard,

I feel that investigating a spiritual experience can be very helpful as experience
and understanding are not always the same thing. Apparently aleister Crowly
had a Kensho and ( he was once reputed to be "the wickedest man in the world")
Apparently, the only trouble he had with this was that he could not tell if he
had found God or the Devil ! This guy went on to be a Mega Libertine of the
time. I think prolonged investigation of his experience would have done him a
power of good.

One often hears the Zen tales of masters sending off newly enlightened desciples to seclusion for years at a time whilst their understanding matures.
Apparently this was to keep them out of mischief and to get over any enlightenment
disease that might otherwise foul the air. I can think of at least one person who
could have benefited from this type of treatment.


It seems that no matter how great an experience one has, it is almost
worthless without understanding......and that can take time and investigation.

I was once sat at a red light in my car and someone tail-ended me at high
speed. It felt like a bomb had gone off in the car. Everything got thrown about
including myself. It took a while literally for me to figure out what had
happened. The experience was very vivid to say the least but at that moment,
I hadn`t a clue as to what was happening. Understanding of the experience
came when I sat still and investigated my condition...and when I turned
around and saw the woman who had hit me approaching my door !

So I guess I`m saying that it`s understanding that is the most important
factor and it doesn`t matter which way one acquires it. It is the big `Numero
Uno` in the eightfold path for a reason.

I`m curious (nosey) as to why you make an exception for past lives ?? Do
tell.

Thanks a bunch for " meditation that is directed by personal interests or
avoidance, is not really a meditation at all" .....All I`ve got to do now when I
head for the zafu is to make sure I`ve got no personal interests in going there
LOL.

I don`t have a personal interest, I don`t have a personal interest, I don`t...
... Sod it, I think I`ll head over to that new OBCC bar that`s in the basement.

So long, Stan.

Stan wrote:

I don`t have a personal interest, I don`t have a personal interest

Oooh, me neither! I *never* hit the zafu to make my own life experience better, but for (sing it with me now!) The Enlightenment of All Beings.

(earlobes grow, fingers lengthen, aura glows brighter, etc etc etc)

Hey Dan !

So long as you don`t have a personal interest in `The enlightenment of all
beings` when you next sit or you`ll get ALL the signs including something " well
retracted" !! Like that other guy who got his head licked by a grizzly. LOL.

Just where is that bar again ?...

Stan,

Great analogy spiritual experience like being rear-ended.

I like it!

Hey Stan

I`m curious (nosey) as to why you make an exception for past lives ?? Do
tell.
Some cheese is meant to have holes in it. (Number 1 bad excuse for my last posting)

OK, on the fly & out the door but briefly...

When I was talking about spiritual experiences I was originally thinking about the classic fallings away of self where life then unfolds for a time in a very egocentric-less way. I do believe that the best way to fully digest these experiences is through non-action as opposed to how we have habitually learned in the past. It is really a process of un learning that I would also submit has no expiry date. Playing with it is just the ego effectively stepping on it.

Then the spectre of past lives came up which can also be considered a spiritual experience but these often arise with the need for some accompanying change in attitude by the participant for their lesson to unfold. They are both spiritual experiences but where the first is free fall, past lives are more like pointers on present behaviour that currently makes free fall unlikely.

Nothing distracts the message in a posting like an exception.

Cheers

Hey Howard,

Thanks for your cheese minus the holes. It makes sense. With me, it tends
to be letting go of something. Not pleasant during....healing after. Thanks.


Hi Mokuan,

Just another rendezvous with reality ! No fear involved which is a bonus.
Don`t forget your seat belts by the way !

Stan.

I find the worst pair of opposites to get stuck in is spiritual vs mundane.
The safest way to live, for me, is to just do what needs to be done. If it benefits only me (as if anything could), fine; if it benefits other sentient beings, fine.
I still like sushi, so can't get too swollenheaded.
O.

Hey O
I find the worst pair of opposites to get stuck in is spiritual vs mundane.
The safest way to live, for me, is to just do what needs to be done. If it benefits only me (as if anything could), fine; if it benefits other sentient beings, fine.
I still like sushi, so can't get too swollenheaded.


Spiritual vs Mundane

I don't yet get that they are really opposites. It could be just my definitions but I think that if spirituality is awareness, then the mundane is just the absence of awareness. My only mundane has been whatever I've not been able or willing to really look at. With awareness there is only the spiritual just as in it's absence there is only the mundane so I'm not sure how the vs between them works.

Doing what needs to be done is great as an expression of saying just pick up the broom and use it instead of ruminating over a dirty floor but some of the most heinous human crimes have also been justified by someone saying they were just doing what needed to be done.

Is the sushi statement about eating non vegetarian sushi?

H

.

Waking up in the morning doing the obvious. Taking the next step. Again doing the obvious. Just common sense living.A bit of mindfulness, some sitting in the day when

possible or what ever practice we are working with, allways going on. How can we not.Just continuing with our lives. Its just living, no perfection, just life.

It doesnt even unfold, it just presents itself if words are needed. Aware in the every day usual stuff. I have found that times of grief have pushed me into an awareness that is not of every day, but still dealing with the every day.

For me the spiritual is the will or a wish, and the mundane just living an ordinary life,

nothing special. Living in an arena with other beings all of us trying to work out how to live within the push and pull of life with certainty left behind covered in dust.

John

John you have me there..I thought the spiritual was living and ordinary life nothing special,without an intention or desire to do anything else..I wonder how many people have seen the depths of themselves by sweeping a floor,chopping wood,hanging out clothes

Probably a lot of women Mike !......I`m out of here.

Stan.

Maybe that explains why woman are so good at organising me without me even noticing that I am being organised. I have spent 2 days with grand daughter no 1 while grand daughter no 2 has been born,I have had 2 days of immaturity,irresponsibility and fun,and at 4 no2 has this amazing ability of wrapping me round her little finger, and off we go. We have charged into a magical adventure eating drinking and going to bed when we want,swimming,pony riding. Daughter is back tomorrow,we might get away with it,I doubt it. Do we all meet in mid air when we drop our differences? I have known you for more than 40 years I think we will both say yes

I think we can shake hands on it Mike.

Where is O'lga anyway? I miss her.

Carol wrote:

Where is O'lga anyway? I miss her.

Carol, me too!!!

Fortunately, I can report that O'lga was here yesterday. So I am hoping that she will join back in the conversation soon!

But Kozan you're everywhere .Is "here" HERE ? if so good , as yes i miss Olga too, i found her by mistake on my iphone obcconnect link that's hard to open up in its smaller form and always starts me years back .

Nicky wrote:

But Kozan you're everywhere .Is "here" HERE ?

I'm pretty sure I just saw Kozan in a Starbucks in Portland, but my friend says SHE just saw him in Santa Rosa, so I think he might be everywhere Which would be a good thing

I always suspected he was magical as well as mystical.