A Fortunate, but Inconvenient Discovery

[DerFürst]

This has been in my mind for an extremely long time. It was more of an impression than a thought before, but somehow, this thought became fleshed out to me yesterday after I followed a train of thought as far as I could stand to. This idea came upon me so suddenly that a part of my worldview was broken, leaving me contemplating the idea for at least an hour straight. I believe this is pertinent for everyone.

The game we're playing is far bigger than I had once thought. A child will grow up, see the repugnant nature of darkness, and vow to be good and "of the light." A child may also grow up, see the impotence of "light", and choose to be wicked.

Most people who enter this world will see the depravity of the polarity "evil" and all of its vices, and as a result decide to align with the polarity "good." As a result of joining the "light side," they will immediately consider themselves morally superior and pure. This "light side" promotes the very easy concepts of hope, servitude, and most importantly worship. These things, while seemingly better, are in fact part of the same problem. Allow me to explain why.

Hope is an exercise in futility that drains your energy towards an impossible to reach target, and thus is a method of creating stagnation, and even docility.

Servitude is not the same thing as devotion, as those who devote themselves to something choose so fully aware of what it will entail. Servitude is different. It is then that those joining the "light side" will become servants to "higher powers," thus relinquishing their seniority as an immortal spirit, giving themselves up to an idea that they consider "better" than themselves. Then, to top it all off, those who have given up seniority will then begin to worship that which they have given up their independence to.

Worship is so... wrong. I realize I can only describe this in a dualistic way, but believe me, It's horrid. If the Bible were the absolute ultimate source of truth the Vatican claims it to be, then worship would be the biggest sin of them all. In the act of worship, one willingly belittles oneself by giving away their seniority once again, and delivers their energy to someone or something that desires to use that energy for none other than self gain. So what has just happened here? Instead of having your energy being drained out of you by a mean, forceful "bad guy," you've willingly given your energy to a meek, mild mannered "good guy." Worship is a tool designed to pump energy towards something or another, and is in no way useful to anyone but the recipient.

So what does darkness do? Darkness revels in the fact that it appears disgusting by seeking pleasure, glorifying the self, and by purposefully breaking established norms.

Most people understand that pleasure seeking is, in essence, searching for short term gratification. Not only is this a short sighted goal, but a self destructive one. Most things that are "pleasurable" often aren't even remotely useful for sustaining development. For example, if you just wanted to "feel good" all the time, you might use food as an escape. As a result of giving your body what it craves, you ultimately deny what it needs. Asceticism then appears to be the answer, but even actions like fasting can be harmful if taken the the point of starvation.

Glorifying the self is well described by the story of Lucifer. Lucifer decides he's fed up with the hypocrisy of "heaven" and decides to forge his own way. However, instead of just accepting the fact that he disagrees, he purposefully goes into the far opposite polarity. "Heaven" views itself as selfless, so "Lucifer" decides to become selfish in direct defiance. Looking out for one's own needs is paramount, but going out of your way to take things from others is just plain cruel. More importantly, in the act of self glorification, one limits their perception by focusing only on oneself.

Breaking taboos is another method "darkness" uses. When a norm is established, the "dark" person will seek to do the opposite, purely because of the energy given off (it's funny to think Internet trolls are unknowingly practicing the tenets of satanism.) This is extremely unhealthy. You don't want other people's energy, especially not in the form they'll be giving it to you. Not only have you once again stolen energy from others, but you're never going to do anything truly useful by it either. Breaking paradigms simply to break them is silly. There's no long term benefit in doing this.

So what does all of this have to do with anything? I believe I've just past beyond another veil. The "good light" and the "evil dark" are nothing more than constructs that gain their power from existing in the illusory state of duality. Picking a side in the cosmic conflict of duality then only feeds energy to the concept. So what's the point of being good or evil if you know that you're clinging to a lie? The answer is that it's easy. It's very easy to exist in duality. It gives those willing to follow duality power within duality. However, duality is only taking advantage of people. It purposefully gives its followers power by its nature so that duality can continue to exist. There is more beyond it, but duality likes to assume the role of "all that is" in a feeble attempt to feel like its more than it is.

To go beyond good and evil, you have to see the whole picture. When you look at the Yin-Yang symbol, you can choose to see two opposites in conflict. You can decide to look at the symbol as meaning the purity of white contrasted against the depravity of black. This, however, makes absolutely no sense. If "good" existed by itself with no "evil" to combat, would it make any sense? Does it make sense that in order to be "good, proper, or correct," a villain must be created to show contrast? If "good" were truly "good," why would it need to create a dichotomy to prove itself?

I think I understand it better now. There is no such thing as "good" nor "evil," only varying degrees of truth. Duality then appears to be lacking of the whole truth. Duality is not a lie, yet it isn't the truth either. What is it then? It is the sum of all of its parts. It is action and reaction. It is simply all that it is. There is no need to spin a view on it, only look at it for how it appears, how it acts, and what it does. In other words, good and evil must be viewed as the whole of its concept while simultaneously understanding the intricacies of its details. It must be viewed from all angles, all coordinates, all planes, simultaneously.

Divinity, then, is not what makes you feel good, nor is it what looks pretty. I surmise divinity to simply be truth. The more true it is, the closer to divinity it becomes. And so, the true meaning of the journey of life is to simply become more true. Individuals all carry with them their own truths, so in order to reach the end, the individual truth, unique to the person, must be found. God is then not some almighty omnipotent bearded man, but rather the culmination of everything; the absolute truth, encompassing of everything. What a paradoxical thought. God creates so that God could be created. Even then this is just a circumstantial answer. If the journey to reach the true answer is infinite, how is it possible for it ever to have been reached? I suppose that answer will be revealed infinitely later. This entire thought has broken down my acceptance of linearity, in time, and in space. I wish I knew how this all worked. Perhaps its that desire that keeps me looking.

[CFTraveler]

There's a couple more veils to get through, but you're on your way.

[John Sorensen]

Worship is so... wrong. I realize I can only describe this in a dualistic way, but believe me, It's horrid. If the Bible were the absolute ultimate source of truth the Vatican claims it to be, then worship would be the biggest sin of them all. In the act of worship, one willingly belittles oneself by giving away their seniority once again, and delivers their energy to someone or something that desires to use that energy for none other than self gain. So what has just happened here? Instead of having your energy being drained out of you by a mean, forceful "bad guy," you've willingly given your energy to a meek, mild mannered "good guy." Worship is a tool designed to pump energy towards something or another, and is in no way useful to anyone but the recipient.

Yup, worship is a pointless and stupid activity.


Have you ever read the following words:

"Do not have any other gods before me, do not represent such gods by any carved statue or picture of anything in the heavens above, on earth below, or in the water below the land. Do not bow down to or worship them"

"Do not make a representation of anything that is with me"

...And yet millions of people have crosses around their neck, and instead of remembering the teachings and LIFE of Christ, they glorify his death, while conveniently glossing over the whole "immortality of consciousness" part.

Martin Luther King was shot, but I don't see anyone wearing guns around their necks to "remember" him by.

It amazes me how the more people do something, no matter how stupid it is, people accept it, because that's what other people are doing, rather than using their own intelligence.

Look at the Aztec empire marching their own people up the pyramid and cutting their hearts out to please their god of war. But the warrior society had the power, so that's what they believed in.


“The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency.”
―Albert Einstein

[eyeoneblack]

It strikes me as sad that this is the era of worship of self.

J.Conrad 1903 "Romance": I clung to her as men cling to their highest good -- with an exalted and selfish devotion.

It is a devotion, a worship, whenever we project or self-adulation onto another form. And yet, it seems to our reasoning, a selfless act. Worship is a delusion but not entirely fruitless. The self is barren and salty soil to the flowering of compassion. If we should strive to be a hero who is it we serve?

[John Sorensen]

It strikes me as sad that this is the era of worship of self.

J.Conrad 1903 "Romance": I clung to her as men cling to their highest good -- with an exalted and selfish devotion.

It is a devotion, a worship, whenever we project or self-adulation onto another form. And yet, it seems to our reasoning, a selfless act. Worship is a delusion but not entirely fruitless. The self is barren and salty soil to the flowering of compassion. If we should strive to be a hero who is it we serve?

Yeah, I don't understand what you are saying, can you please clarify?

Also, please give your meanings of the words "self" and "worship".

[eyeoneblack]

Define 'worship' and 'self'....

Well, John, I had to sit on that question awhile . I can only imagine my own thoughts about it. Never-the-less I’ll give it a stab and hope you will offer up your own.

Self:

Freud (along the same lines as Aristotle) categorized the self as a trinity; Id, Ego, Superego. Basically speaking we can associate each of these drives with structures of the brain: limbic, cortex, and neocortex specifically the frontal lobes - for this purpose, anyway. Metaphorically speaking the Id/limbic answers to the need for food, clothing and shelter. The Ego/cortex answers to social needs such as division of labor within a group of individuals. The Superego/frontal lobes answers to self-governess within the social context. The Superego functions as the captain of the ship navigating the volatile seas of relationships.

Worship:

This is the key to my understanding. Worship evolved from the earliest times when the forces of nature befuddled the primitive mind. Being totally out of Man’s control, these dynamic forces were superstitiously embodied in talismans and icons as foci of supernatural powers.

So what?:

I think it is a common assumption that, in terms of influence, the Freudian compartments - Id, Ego, Superego - rank from least to most, implying the Superego is the King in the hierarchy. And yet, history tells us otherwise. A recent article makes the case that revolutions are seeded by lack or price of food http://www.slate.com/articles/health...ty.single.html

Food is an Id issue so we turn the hierarchy on its head and Id is the supreme ruler with Superego coming in last. The article makes clear that people will suffer stoically most any burden until it hits the stomach.

What does this imply? I suggest it points to a dichotomy of perception. We want to believe we are willing to fight for an ideology (Superego), but this is not truly the case. The Civil War (US) was supposedly a contest over the unjust idea of slavery; but this isn't really so. The South's desire to secede from the Union was driven by the need to preserve the way of life of the gentry, an Id issue again, strongly supported by the Ego. [Is it just a coincidence that ideology is the -ology (knowledge of ) the Id?] The Id/Ego alliance is a default arrangement because it supports the same needs. However, it is unnatural for the Ego to ally with the Superego. This arrangement results in a conflict of interests.

Ben Franklin said (paraphrasing) that no matter what a man decides to do, he can find a good reason to do it. If this observation is so salient then it implies the absolute jurisprudence of the Ego’s needs.

If we compare this to the action of the Superego we run into a bit of a conundrum. Remember I stipulated, rightly of wrongly, that the Ego cannot ally with the Superego. This in effect becomes an effort to serve two masters. Altruism, we suppose, is a function of the Superego and yet it s curious to me that if one is to discover true acts of altruism it would be of little good to look to the wealthy, privileged segment of society for examples. The wonderful book, and terrible movie, City of Joy, is replete with examples of true altruism discovered in the slums of Calcutta. The lives of the lepers and consumptives of the City provide ample evidence of true and selfless altruism. Rather counter-intuitive isn’t it?

So it seems, but it is only counter-intuitive because we have ourselves upside-down. Which is to say that we operate from a top down rather than a bottom up perspective. This is a delusion. Remember, the Superego, or what we may refer to as our highest ideals, is subordinate to the Ego (reducing Id and Ego to simply Ego). With this in mind we realize that when we worship the ideal of our Higher Self, we unwittingly worship the Ego. It amounts to nothing more than a psychological projection of ‘self’ onto ‘idol’ - thus is born the Golden Calf , or the goose that lays the golden eggs, or the Fairy Godmother and et cetera.

As Christians we are taught that Man is created in the image of God. In practice quite the opposite is true. We create God in our own image. The number of denominations, sub-denominations and non-denominations is sufficient evidence to support my opinion. We shop in the supermarket of theism for the one that is most pleasing to our concept, our willful delusion of self.

An old and long-time friend of mine, may she RIP, was an influential spiritual leader in my city, the nation and the world. She had in her mind the notion that a soul must ‘tow the line’ lest it be left behind, never to know the Paradise of the Kingdom of God. Whether she knew it or not, she was thinking and believing along the same lines of Calvinism - that the survivors of the mortal toil were elected or chosen based on Devine Grace.

And she ran her organization accordingly. We had many apply for inclusion in our group but if they did not pass the intelligence and/or talented test they were unceremoniously shown the door. She represented the god of her ‘self’.

Just prior to adding my thoughts to this thread I had read this post from a member of a FB group:

I'm tired of having these experiences and I always seen to be just wandering around. I wanna fight crime, cast out demons and shoot projectile out my hands. I used to be able to do that, but maybe such negativity grew own of me.

Anybody know anything tricks to do once I get there?

I thought that was a little disturbing. Yes, I took it out of context. There is no overt spirituality in the goals and methods in the field of LD, AP and OBE. Never-the-less this points to an error in perception. It was with this in mind that I wrote:

If we should strive to be a hero who is it we serve?

I hardly need to explain how this poster's ambitions were merely for the gratification and glorification of self. It is as much to say, 'I would like myself better IF...'.

Naturally, it wasn't my words, but the words of Joseph Conrad that sealed the deal for me:

I clung to her as men cling to their highest good -- with an exalted and selfish devotion.

Where Conrad refers to "highest good" we may as well substitute 'higher self' as it doesn't alter the metaphor. When we 'cling to' the higher self, then, the result is a "an exalted and selfish devotion".

It is in the light of this revelation that I basically concluded, "It is a devotion, a worship, whenever we project our self-adulation onto another form."

Well, I've gone on long enough.

Thanks, John, for this opportunity to examine rationally my own beliefs.

[John Sorensen]

Define 'worship' and 'self'....

Well, John, I had to sit on that question awhile . I can only imagine my own thoughts about it. Never-the-less I’ll give it a stab and hope you will offer up your own.

Thanks for your considered and interesting reply eyeoneblack. I meant to be more specific, to say what is your personal definition of those words, because no two people have exactly the same ideas and experiences. One persons "god" is another persons "devil" or vice versa.

I am familiar with the various strands of thinkers and religious cultural values of antiquity you mentioned.

The bit at the end about worshipping any kind of self was particularly interesting.

But your post seems to cover the traditional, rational, mechanistic world view.

You leave out the part of living with no "concept" of self or personality, but simply being, not as a word, but as a biological experiential state, free of thoughts and mental concepts, or Consciousness without any content.

To me this is our natural state, and everything else (conceptual or otherwise) comes afterward.
There is no space between our thoughts. We are the space that gives rise to thoughts and perception.

Or to put it another way, - but words only limit and give ideas to cling to - we are the universe looking at itself, aware of itself. If there is no "other" or object, if we shift our focus, then we are just pure awareness, with no distinction of barriers, or beginning and end, or time.

Well, that is my daily experience anyhow. As soon as bring in any concepts, that is not "it", because we leave our state of emptiness and bring in content or "form".

The confusion for me, is when we mistake the content of out consciousness for our identity. Or even assuming we have an identity in the first place and struggling to find out "who am I", rather than living in this moment as a field of intelligent awareness free of any grasping for self.

My feeling is that one day we will cast aside limiting ideas like "spiritual", and everybody on the planet will only know the direct experience of who and what they are, without any mental concept, just a direct knowing, and there will no use for words like religion, or spiritual, (which imply separation) because there will be only that which is.