Re: Mind's Eye New Google Groups is Dumb,but this not the subject

A sexist domination interpretation is perceiving what is in
separation. I prefer a unified view, but that is just me. We each
have a male and female aspect - male active-female receptive; male
conquers-female nurtures, male externally prone-female internally
prone, male thinks, woman feels etc...

What is true is the human race (culture can effect this) is prone to
view our external experience as dominant to our internal - and live
according to the dictates of what the world is telling us rather than
our internal experiences of feeling, thinking, intuition, creativity.
If there is an imbalance in most folks, it is there - and if our male
aspects are represented in the world, and our female aspects
represented within, the male usually presides, We concern ourselves
with the world and all the minutia and facts it presents, rather than
focusing on self discovery. The dynamic between is where the mystery
is unraveled.

On Jul 6, 4:42 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I reread it... I know it is a model most people want and chose to live by
> for eons..
> It is a model for sexist domination, an excuse to avoid
> the spiritual connection that is already there. people read and see a lot
> of things especially when it comes to the bible.  I semi see what you are
> saying..
>
> The object is to reopen the spiritual plain for your soul to walk
> the realm of the original garden of Eden,,  I do not see where the Entirety
> had much to do with the closing of the spiritual door,  I think is more man
> not wanting to return to the original state of spirituality,, and then
> blocking the passage to prevent others from entering.
>
> And yes your soul is your personal part of the Entirety, not separate for
> the Entirety but only part of it..  I think the question comes down to how
> bad do you want to avoid a path of harmony and balance..  or is the age old
> path that most people walk the easiest one.
> Allan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Okay I will go back and re read it.. before I comment..
> > Allan
>
> > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> That might be somewhat true of the fundamentalist interpretation of
> >> scripture.  At that level of our human development, we are looking to
> >> be led in fundamental ways, looking for answers outside ourselves, and
> >> they are provided.
>
> >> But the mystical interpretation of scripture is a very different
> >> read.  Scripture becomes a diagram for living, an owners manual of the
> >> internal workings of being.  Taken as metaphor and not historical
> >> fact, the bible opens ourselves to us.
>
> >> I see the Adam and Eve story as an explanation of your latest post,
> >> duality and the other side of it - the main characters - our male and
> >> female aspects - and, to complete the trinity - our aspect that
> >> separates (the serpent), creates right and wrong and all opposites -
> >> and brings us from the non dual to duality.
>
> >> Eastern philosophies correlate the serpent to kundalini - the polarity
> >> of our life force that runs through us in the subtle system of the
> >> chakras.  There is truth there.  This polarity is natural and
> >> essential to life.
>
> >> On Jul 6, 3:06 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I know the adam and eve thing,, a disobedience to God  dogma,,
> >> > Sorry Genesis is an interesting way of explaining creation to an
> >> ignorant
> >> > people  and in that it does a good job in doing..
>
> >> > I think it is one of those hypes to keep people in line an living in
> >> fear.
> >> > Allan
>
> >> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:35 PM, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > I'm too hot to study. I might have something that would explain
> >> > > Original Sin- either the Summa or Divine Comedy (great notes in the
> >> > > Sayer's translation) but let me guess. I'd put my money on the
> >> > > disobedience of Eve and Adam and expulsion from Eden plus its curses
> >> > > which is not unlike Prometheus and Pandora myths and other creation
> >> > > myths. The pattern seems a separation from the creator which has to be
> >> > > repaired through religion/dogma and rituals. But is a baby is born in
> >> > > the state of sin by  the mere fact of it being human? Does science
> >> > > even promote this via genetics, psychology and other theories? Since
> >> > > religion has historically been a linch-pin of human society this
> >> > > theory would ensure a compliant or nervous group to govern either by
> >> > > tribal leaders, politicians or the military, wouldn't it? What do you
> >> > > think?
>
> >> > > On Jul 4, 3:46 pm, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > Interesting, I like the RV church ,,  but sorry no one has ever
> >> given
> >> > > that
> >> > > > answer .. To me it is a question they want to avoid.
> >> > > > It can be a reasonable examination ,  but the original sin leaves a
> >> lot
> >> > > of
> >> > > > question to it's origin.
>
> >> > > > At sometime it may have been understood but lost deep in chuch
> >> archives..
> >> > > > Allan
> >> > > >  On Jul 4, 2012 10:09 PM, "rigsy03" <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > The Roman Catholic sacrament of Baptism deals with the
> >> pre-existence
> >> > > > > of the soul as it is intended to cleanse the soul of Original Sin-
> >> > > > > which means the Church Fathers must have accepted the notion of
> >> the
> >> > > > > soul's pre-existence to begin with.
>
> >> > > > > On Jul 4, 8:07 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > I am not sure how aggressive it is , the  concept has been
> >> floating
> >> > > > > around
> >> > > > > > for eons.. christianity does not want to deal with the concept
> >> of a
> >> > > soul
> >> > > > > > and its origin..  the preexistence of  soul is an idea they hide
> >> > > from.
>
> >> > > > > > the reality spirituality is a subject tip toe around and trying
> >> to
> >> > > use
> >> > > > > many
> >> > > > > > words and say little..
>
> >> > > > > > As I view it, (it has been a struggle for me to arrive at this
> >> view
> >> > > > > point.)
> >> > > > > > this reality is only a way station in a spiritual existence.
> >> This is
> >> > > not
> >> > > > > > the end stage. when we are born into this world our should give
> >> up
> >> > > their
> >> > > > > > knowledge and are in effect are saying that we know how to live
> >> in a
> >> > > > > > physical plain and raise ourselves to a higher spiritual
> >> level..  the
> >> > > > > > highest being a level of complete harmony with the Entirety.
> >> (or God
> >> > > if
> >> > > > > you
> >> > > > > > insist  but actually that is an incorrect concept.)
>
> >> > > > > > I believe the Tibetan Buddhist monks simply abandon the body to
> >> > > nature so
> >> > > > > > it can complete its cycle and return to earth.  It is the soul
> >> that
> >> > > is of
> >> > > > > > importance,   I really do not see much difference than the  the
> >> soul
> >> > > > > being
> >> > > > > > reborn as...
> >> > > > > > Allan
> >> > > > > > On Jul 4, 2012 10:38 AM, "Vam" <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > > This is aggressive stuff, Allan !  Thank you.
>
> >> > > > > > > The hardest thing in context is that we believe we are the
> >> body,
> >> > > > > > > empirically. Hence, people find no one, no " I," no
> >> possibility of
> >> > > > > > > anything even remotely akin or connected to our self, before
> >> the
> >> > > body
> >> > > > > > > is born.
>
> >> > > > > > > Soul to such people is an obscure thing, conceptually and
> >> > > > > > > phenomenally. We therefore find the suggestion, of a soul
> >> before
> >> > > the
> >> > > > > > > child is born, fantastic. Ridiculous, in other
> >> > > > > > > words.
>
> >> > > > > > > On Jul 4, 11:06 am, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > > > > What is so hard about seeing the possibility of the soul
> >> existing
> >> > > > > before
> >> > > > > > > > the child is born?
> >> > > > > > > > Allan- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> > --
> >> >  (
> >> >   )
> >> > |_D Allan
>
> >> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>
> > --
> >  (
> >   )
> > |_D Allan
>
> > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
>
> --
>  (
>   )
> |_D Allan
>
> Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.