Hi Nico, thanks for your comment.  Here is another excerpt that speaks to the subject.  (I am doing exactly what this piece says not to do, to repeat someone else’s words.)  But I feel I have received them on a level somewhat deeper that the logic of it.  We can talk about these topics, maybe on Amarynth’s post about the Percival book if discussion get going.

“Many things are involved in this question”.  1,200 words

Propaganda is a lie because mere repetition cannot be the truth. Truth cannot be repeated, for truth can only be experienced directly; mere repetition is a lie because repetition implies imitation. That which you repeat may be truth to someone, but when you repeat it, it ceases to be truth.

Propaganda is one of the terrible things in which we are caught. You know something or you don’t know. Usually, you have read something in some books and you have heard some talk and you want to spread it. Have those words any significance besides the verbal meaning?  What you are spreading is really words, and do words or terms resolve our problems? Say, for instance, you believe in reincarnation; you don’t know why you believe it?  But you want to spread that belief. What are you spreading in fact? Your belief, your terms, words; your convictions which are still within the field of verbal expression.

We think in words, in terms; we seek explanations which are still only words, and we are caught in this monstrous lie, believing that the word is the thing, or close enough to it. Surely, the word God is not God, but you believe that the word of God is God, and that therefore you can spread it. Please see this. To you, the word has become more important than reality. You are caught at the verbal level, and what you want to spread is the word. That means you will catch what I am saying now in the web of words, and so cause a new division between man and man. Then you will create a new system based on these words, which you the propagandist will spread among other propagandists, who are also caught in words—and thereby what have you done? Whom have you helped? No, sirs, that is not the way to spread anything. So don’t try what is counterproductive, what is the height of folly—to spread someone else’s experience.

If you experience something directly, it must be experience not based on belief, because what you believe, you experience; and therefore, it is not a real experience but only a conditioned experience. There can be experience, the right kind of experience, only when thinking ceases, but that experience cannot be spread as information to clear up the mess. If you begin to understand simple things, like divisive nationalism, surely you can discuss it with others, in order to make it known as a poison, which is destroying man. Sirs, you are not aware of the enormous calamity that lies in wait for you, and for the whole world because this poison is spreading. You are nationalists, you are Hindus, against Pakistan, against England, against Germany, against Russia, and so on. So, nationalism is a poison, is it not? You can understand that very easily because it divides men.

You cannot be a nationalist and talk of brotherhood; these terms are contradictory.

“That also you can understand, that you can talk about. But you don’t want to talk about that, because that would mean a change of heart within yourself, which means that you must cease to be a Hindu, with your beliefs, ceremonies, and all the rubbish that is around you. We don’t talk about nationalism because we might be asked if we are free of it ourselves. Not being free, we evade it, and try to discuss something else. Surely you can talk about something which you live and which you are doing every day, and that is what I have been talking about—your daily actions, your daily thoughts, and feelings. My words you cannot repeat, for, if you do, they will have no meaning; but you can talk about the way you live, the way you act, the way you think, from which alone there can be understanding; all that, you can discuss; but there is no use of groups and organizations, with presidents and secretaries, which are terrible things in which you are often caught.

Sirs, though you all smile, yet surely you are all caught in these. I don’t think you know how catastrophic the whole situation is in the world now. I don’t have to frighten you. You have merely to pick up a newspaper and read about it. You are on the edge of a precipice, and you still perform silly ceremonies, carry on in your stupid ways, blind to what is happening. You can only alter by the transformation of yourself and not by the introduction of a new system, whether of the left or of the right, or spiritually motivated. In the transformation of yourself is the only hope, but you cannot transform yourself radically, profoundly, if you are above all a Hindu, or any other group, if you perform these ceremonies, if you are caught in the net of organizations.

As it has always been in the past, so also at the present time the salvation of man is in his being creative. You are caught inwardly in belief, in fear, and in those hindrances that prevent the coming together of mind and man.

That is, if I don’t know how to love you, how to love my neighbor, my wife, how can there be communion between us? We need communion; not communion between systems, but communion between you and me without systems, without organizations, and that means we must really know how to love one another. Our hearts must be opened to one another, but your hearts cannot be open if you belong to an organization, if you are bound by beliefs, if you are nationalistic, if you are a Brahmin or a Sudra [castes]. So, you can spread even a tiny part of what I have been talking about only as you live it. It is by your life that you communicate profoundly, not through words.

Words, sirs, to a serious, thoughtful man have very little meaning. Terms are of very little significance when you are really seeking truth, truth in relationship and not an abstract truth of ✓valuations, of ✓things, or of ✓ideas or ✓ideologies. If you want to find the truth of those things verbally, it is of little importance. But words become very important when you are not seeking truth; then the word is the thing, and the thing catches you.

So, if you want to spread these teachings, live them, and by your life you will be spreading them. You will be communicating them, which is much more true and significant than any verbal repetition, for repetition is imitation and imitation is not creativeness, and you as an individual must awake to your own conditioning and thereby free yourself and hence give love to another.”

For such a metamorphosis there is only one starting point, and that is with “the me”, here and now, in daily living and relationships.

.

>”Who is able to listen to the unseen?”

Hypothetical rarified states are the unseen, but the question could be: Who is able to listen or perceive the unexplained, the uninterpreted. I would say everyone can, schooled or unschooled, if they can allow for a still mind. Stillness can be attempted by force. Or you can realize it (by looking), that most thought is uninteresting and unproductive. Some of it will drop off.

>”One arrives at the truth by wanting truth above all else.” Wouldn’t that be merely desire? How would that be different than a normal life of greed, separation and conflict? OK, now I desire spiritual awakening. Isn’t that just an “ultimate security”, to imagine arriving at some sort of highest level?

If you ever get “there”, it may turn out to be quite different than your drive was in the beginning. (You said that.) But what is the likelihood of getting to truth by use of the same old tools of conditioning?

I am not going to doubt that you hear sounds, and see these different colors when you visit the Astral, Material and Soul Planes. But I am not going to broadly assume my hunches are divine. I do think we have ability for direct seeing. I see it more as uncovering seeing from the veil of extraneous thoughts, more that developing a muscle.  Does it take muscle to stop thought?  If so, it won’t work very well (more desire).

Yes, that is the alter-within. And truth is not going to be what we think it “should be”.

Discriminate, test what one receives, for many seers have a wild imagination.

>Desire (seeking) definitely distorts all observation. Are we desiring to find out what is before desire. A bit absurd. (I think) being open to truth is not esoteric. It just means to observe with a still mind. Thoughts carry all conditioning, No-Thought does not contain conditioning. Conditioning is not any path to what-is (to truth).

> Asking a question is not avoiding the simplicity of your words. It is merely asking a question. In that question is the other, who asked it, confused or not. But also you are there, in your reaction. That is the most valuable part of relationship, you get to see yourself, how you operate in the flux of life. It is a duel focus, outward and inward. Do you get that on the Cornucopia? I’ll go there and see what I find.

Do you have any interest in the Percival book? I don’t think we have to read 1,000 pages to get to the bottom of it.

.

My objective is to find use for this forum as a tool for discussion and discovery.

In the past, I published, moderated and paid for a similar forum for quite a few years, and I know it has potential. It does not take (and does not work with) dozens of participants. Three to five committed to discussion are plenty.

So now we have been given the Percival book. Could that be a topic that would interest people? (Probably the 1,000 pages scares everybody off.) So far – NO TAKERS. Amarynth says the spiritual path is lonely – yes – and no. Also, if our “spiritual understanding” is fragile, we don’t want to mess with it.

I have posted various topics, some of which got a comment, and I have commented on other posts. Would others propose a topic that would be of interest? Maybe Percival is not going to fly. Or we could start with the Kevin Carmody essay.

Our medium is the verbal model of how we scrutinize our perceptions. A verbal model is a map of the territory. The two shouldn’t be confused as synonymous. We may claim that they are very close, but perception is limited, and it is interpreted through yesterday’s perceptions, so it is already out of date. This model we refer to, is located in our thoughts (it’s in memory).

THEREFORE, the human is prone to make an explanation for every circumstance, and the verbal model continuously expands. Just read any thread on this forum, and explanations abound. Even if the explanation is very harsh, and the resultant feeling is terrible, it is better than no explanation at all.

Some perceptions don’t fit into the verbal model at all. (They may also have a high hallucination content), but they are here. Then our explanation is, THERE ARE DIFFERENT REALMS. It is not material, it must be “SPIRITUAL”.  Experience always backs up belief, for anyone. It could be for the good; (constructive), or for the bad, (destructive), spirits, ghouls, and Satan. These realms are less tangible, so they need a lot of convincing.

IF we are still reactionary and judgmental, what is the value of the spiritual in our lives?

My post two is not meant to be truths, but benchmarks. Know thyself; then thou shalt know the Universe and God.” — Quote by Pythagoras. So how can we know ourselves, without benchmarks to measure by? My post three is also benchmarks to measure by, not to accept. They suggest how we can interact on this forum. Some talk about mutual respect. For instance:

23. We acknowledge that we are all adults, and do not live in “glass houses”, nor force others to tiptoe around our “no-go-zones”. We can say what we want, with respect. Or realize, maybe it is not even necessary to say anything at all?

24. We have made some commitment to a group that attempts to express their views, and we are also committed to express our own views and look at them with introspection. We are not prone to leave the group or play “take-away” if it looks like we have been leaning on false assumptions.

26. We are not out to crash any belief systems, so we are respecting other people’s boundaries. But at the same time, boundaries are the result of holding a certain context, all of which we are examining. We acknowledge that we come to this blog to improve how we think and act. At least we are willing to look into it.

All of my posts, except post 4, are about introspection. Number 4 was about possible Russian attitudes, which may further explain how that war will progress.

Post 5 talks about perception and then learning, both essential to be a human. But let’s acknowledge their limitations. Basically, there are three realms that it considers, the personal, the interpersonal and the greater world. Do we tend to gravitate to consider the greater world, and ignore the personal and the close relationships? WHY IS THAT?

Post 6 is a Huxley quote further delineating man’s made-up symbols, from the real world of the rhythms of planet earth. Where do we give our major focus? We may say that we “meditate” but what do we get out of it? Has our life shifted?

Post 7 and 8 are David Bohm, given to me by the link that I followed here on GlobalSouth. (All new to me). Then 9 through 12 are exploring Krishnamurti, also given to me by that same Bohm Link, and new to me in these few weeks. My life has shifted greatly by being on GlobalSouth. I can write my own thoughts, or I can reproduce hard hitting words of others, Krishnamurti or Huxley for example. In these weeks everything, also decades of spiritual experience, have taken on a new meaning. I am finding they were all wrongheaded in so many ways.

SOME DAY AN INTERESTING TOPIC WILL COME UP, and explorers will shed their vulnerability and jump in.

.

Hi Nico. It is not my idea to discuss a long book. I have said in a few posts or comments that 6 or 8 points are maximum, not to get dispersed. That’s if you’re very organized. I think obviously, if someone suggests the book and asks others to participate, they want to absorb other points of view. (Could you call that struggling?) We know our administrator is very busy keeping this forum on an even keel.

I said on the above post (first line), my objective is to get more of the potential out of this forum. So if someone says; let’s discuss something, I say yes. If there is a “mess of information”, then it is our responsibility to come up with a clear thesis. I am not put off by that. (And do I surmise, maybe this book is not a good topic?) But consciousness could be a topic, with or without the book.

These below are all good.

Open to the other person and the other person’s point of view?
Does someone very much want to be seen? (psychoanalyzing now)
Does someone want to be seen before they can look at the other person?
Is someone receptive to feedback and backlash?
Does someone approach the conversation with a monologue?
Is there a common goal?
Are individual goals compatible or opposed?

Inquiry is about questioning beliefs, not about agreeing with them or trying to find a happy average were everything is possible. If you see the false in the false, it cannot stand. I am not going to make a blanket statement, but yes my outlook and my demeanor has changed in these months. With no force nor desire involved. You could say I read some books, wasn’t that a desire? NO, that was an opportunity that presented itself to me. (Or, it is what it is with or without an explanation).

I said what I an looking for, discovery through dialog on a forum. But I already have discovery, I am not waiting.  I get it from my engagement, even if the other is running away. Sure, I have questions to put to you. And of course, we must start with what-is, each of our own starting points.

But let’s not say “sometimes it comes together”. What is that, chance or destiny. We both can commit to discuss something, and search for a limited topic of interest. Let’s not talk here at the back-end of an old post. The home page is no good either, since comments roll-up to four lines. It needs to be a new post on the Hearty Salon. I have several subjects in mind, and I am honing them. I am sure you do also.

I THINK WE TWO CAN MEET by intent, not by chance. Is that suspect?

.