Beautiful, thank you michael. I still wince at the “otherness” the word god still connotes, even when compounded with self as she does in saying our essential selves are our self-gods. It feels like Afro-American to differentiate god into personal variations of a theme, especially when she later refers to the self-god as “it”, a thing. I do not doubt that she is speaking from her deepest understanding, but to me all suggestion of separation of a person from the the observer, she speaks of that looks through all the eyes for the experience of being aware, tends to loose track of the oneness of the living universe and the natural connectedness of all beings despite their variation. It may be nit picking, but it seems important to me, especially on such an essential message.
There is no duality but what we create in our own mind. The observer and the observed are the same, just at different perspectives. You are God. I am God. We are one consciousness creating and recreating the universe in every instant.
All these things you say are right on, except that it doesn’t address what I am talking about: language that reinforces that duality in a message I could swear was intended to talk about the oneness through the theme of living nature, not the varieties of it.
I understand; you should not let the word choices of others confuse you. Even by referring to “others,” duality appears to be reinforced, but it is only illusion. You yourself have everything you need to know, and no words could ever tell you what you can only perceive for yourself. If every vessel seems imperfect, still may you find the purity contained within.
Michael, if I were confused by her wording I wouldn’t have noticed the confusion her dualistic terminology could cause. I follow and agree with everything she said, I was merely pointing out … oh, what the hell, you’ll just come back with some blissed out aphorism that makes my specificity too gross for your blog. I should have known better.
As a guru once told me, “There are two paths to enlightenment: transcendence and saturation. In the West, saturation is the path to renunciation of the gross world.”
I write of my understandings for inmates of the Western culture, about the nuts and bolts of losing the ability for free, original thought from the fountain at our core by abdication of responsibility to coercive external authority, from my own experience in escaping the prison without bars. Your transcendence is beautiful, it just seems to ignore the folks still working with the nuts and bolts. The mechanism of belief in the authority from above over the unworthy below cannot just be called illusion and seen to be so so easily. Buddha’s culture did not need so much explaining, being Hindu to begin with.
It seems to me that you are often seeking argument with me, when none is necessary. I live in the same country as you, though my local government may be friendlier, and I have only lived in California for a bit over two years. Moreover, I go back to visit my parents and friends in Pennsylvania from time to time. I am not living on another planet.
Ye have locked yerselves up in cages of fear — and, behold, do ye now complain that ye lack FREEDOM! — St. Bob
For those who need external authority to reify, I am perfectly capable of doing so. As are you, or anyone who merely understands that this authority is internal to all of us. Whether it is best to do so is a separate matter, but if I act as guru then I say you should always remember that the wahe guru is within you.