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

The world/society is more comfortable with stereotypes, I believe-
they are easier to manage. Likewise, the world/society is more
comfortable with a standard model of maturation. Uniques are often
viewed as the monkey wrench. There are countless ways to punish those
who rock the boat. It may take a lifetime to appreciate the benefits
of not fitting the moldy mold but here is where we are graced with
being individuals as world/social opinion really doesn't matter in the
end. Perhaps this is the gift of a long life.

All is vanity and there is nothing new under the sun. (Bible)

On Jul 7, 6:16 am, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -