TODAY'S CONSIDERATIONS
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. [See the offer following this post for details on how you can watch a retreat on video which includes a detailed discussion of all seven of the steps on the path as used by Maharaj]
2. Here, with those who are still driven to talk about "God," the "Son of God," the "Holy Spirit," "Buddha," "Krishna," etc., etc., etc., the invitation to them is to view those as verbs, not nouns. See the end of the post for the full meaning and implications of that.
3. A new video ("Number Ten: Awakening Together Satsang, March 2018") has now been added in the far right column of this page, offering the opportunity to view a recent 2018 satsang session with Floyd being interviewed by Regina and Jacqueline of "The Awakening Together Group."
THE SEEDS OF DUALITY WHICH PRODUCE DUALITY'S PROGENY:
Offspring Number Forty-five =
No Interest in Being Truly Free and Independent
THE MASSES PREFER DEPENDENCY AND CODEPENDENCY AND ATTACHMENT TO THINGS WHICH ROB PERSONS OF THEIR FREEDOM
In the book entitled Overcoming the Fear of Being Totally Independent, the definition of "freedom" is broadened even more by Maharaj, by “non-dualist” Louise Sterling from Cape Town, South Africa, and by additional “conventional” sources:
DEFINING FREEDOM - MAHARAJ
First, how else did Maharaj define freedom? He said, "Freedom means letting go. People just do not care to let go everything."
And that lack of willingness to let go is not confined to the 97% among the masses who are trapped in the ignorance of their prized, myth-based dogma.
Moreover, dogma-driven persons do not have a monopoly on being dependent and codependent.
Some of the most dogmatic of all persons are self-declared "Advaitins" or "Traditional Advanta Vedantins" or "Pseudo-Advaitins" or "Neo-Vedantins" or "Neo-Advaitins" or "Direct Path Advaitins" or "The Real Advaita Vedantins."
Yet freedom is freedom from all duality, from all concepts, from all identification, from all beliefs. Many who claim such freedom are in self-delusion. For example, some come here and remain for the entire dance; others, however, come for a brief visit or two and stay . . .
(a) not long enough for their ego-states to be eradicated but only
(b) long enough for their ego-states to feel hurt or threatened or interfered with or offended.
They leave quickly, staying long enough to report that non-duality is not understood at all here or long enough to leave a profane rant because "Floyd does not pronounce Eastern words properly."
Hell, raised in the region of the U.S. where I was raised and in a poverty-and-ignorance-stricken slum to boot, I don’t even pronounce a lot of English words correctly. So what?
But can such ranting persons take themselves to be fully realized and totally free? Yes they can.
It might be asked, "Of which version of Advaita Vedanta do they speak?
Traditional, Neo-Advaita, Neo-Vedanta, Pseudo-Advaita, Direct Path?"
and
"Of which yoga do they speak?
Hatha, bhakti, raja, gnana, nisarga, or some other?"
Is their issue that they think they know all there is to know about Advaita Vedanta though they have been exposed to only one method of teaching or to only one yoga?
Did they reach the mountaintop with a pack mule carrying their equipment? Does that mean that one whose equipment was carried by a sherpa and is standing on the same mountaintop has not really reached the mountaintop because he / she did not arrive in the exact, same fashion as the one deciding who has reached the mountaintop and who has not?
Is it possible that the one who is not free at all and who is making such judgments is having to look upward, not really having reached a mountaintop at all? Is it possible that the truly realized see no such levels of "higher vs. lower" . . . "top vs. not-top"?
Or does it mean that the judgmental types have no freedom at all, that they are driven by their egotism-supported ego-states to move through the relative existence while making their uninvited visits to one place after another, telling all who are different from them how wrong they are?
Is the preoccupation with such differences that drives their "me vs. them" campaigning actually evidence of how totally embroiled in duality they really are? To use Maharaj's words, what is it that they are not willing to 'let go of'?" The role of "The Knower"? The ego-state of "The Spiritual Giant Who Is Cursed to Walk Among Spiritual Lilliputians?"
Are there roles that you, similarly, prefer not to "let go of"? Could Maharaj be correct? Could it be that if you were truly objective, you might have to admit that, indeed, you are to some degree afraid of freedom (at least freedom that is the only real type of freedom that there is, namely, total freedom)?
Beyond the 97% who are lost in the dream of the superstition-based teachings of the major sky cults, consider also those who might stumble upon the teachings here but are lost in the role and in the agenda of "The Real Advaita Vedantin" mentioned above:
Is there any real freedom exhibited by their behavior that is so obviously driven by the subconscious agenda of a persona? The questions to be asked include . . .
. . . "WHO" (what false ego-states) are so attached to personhood that they have no clue at all that their thoughts and words and actions are determined by their egotism-driven persona(s)?
. . . "WHO" (what false ego-states) are so lost in the illusory sense of "having Realized" that they cannot see that they are not free at all?
DEFINING FREEDOM – LOUISE
Louise is a “non-dualist” in Cape Town, S.A. What did she have to say about that type of blind behavior when she defined freedom?
"Freedom is impersonal so how can you possibly expect to find it when you are so attached to your personhood? Freedom is formless so how can you possibly expect to find it when you are committed to your form?
Freedom is limitless so how can you possibly expect to find it if you are defined by what is particular and limited? Freedom is without attributes so how can you possibly expect to find it when you define yourself according to your characteristics?"
DEFINING FREEDOM - CONVENTIONAL SOURCES
And what are some of the conventional definitions of freedom that are offered in a variety of dictionaries? Here are a few:
a. the power to act or speak or think without externally-imposed restraints;
b. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.;
c. the power to determine action without restraint;
d. exemption from the presence of anything specified - for example, freedom from fear;
e. ease or facility of movement or action; and,
f. in philosophy, the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination.
Yet consider: when personality determines thought, word and deed - which personality does - then none of the above forms of freedom can manifest. If one is driven by the agenda of a personality, then there is no power to act or speak or think without the externally-imposed restraints of personality.
The person cannot be exempt from the external control and interference and regulation of one or more agenda-driven personas.
Living under the auspices of personality, there can be no ability to determine action without restraint.
Living under the auspices of personality, there is no exemption from the presence of such personality-specified aspects such as desire and fear.
Living under the auspices of personality (which determines all thoughts and all words and all actions) there can be no ease or facility of movement or action.
Living under the auspices of personality, there can be no power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without.
As long as all is self-determined (determined by the false self) then there can be no Self-determination (determined by the natural, spontaneous aspects of the unblocked, pure consciousness).
Realization is, among other things, about freedom from ignorance and irrationality and insanity . . . about being restored to sanity. What could be more ignorant and irrational and insane that believing that one is free when one is bound up in personality, imprisoned by delusions, trapped in the cage of one's "mind," and living under the auspices of egotism-driven ego-states?
To be continued.
THE NEWEST OFFER:
Watch an updated seven-hour streaming video of a retreat with Floyd Henderson which can be viewed by anyone with internet access. (In this video, all seven of the steps on "the path" as taught by Maharaj are explained and discussed.)
If interested; click the button below to pay the fee via PayPal. You will then receive an email which includes the link for you to view the private, unlisted video via an arrangement we have made with YouTube, Inc. You do not have to have a YouTube account to watch this privately streamed video.
(If you do not receive the link promptly, your computer or email provider may have high filter settings. Check your spam and trash folders because some providers automatically transfer emails containing links to those folders.)
To access the seven-hour streaming video of a retreat and begin watching right away, click this "Buy Now" button:
Please enter into the silence of contemplation.
[NOTE: The four most recent posts are below. You may access all of the posts in this series and in the previous series and several thousand other posts as well by clicking on the links in the "Recent Posts and Archives" section.]
In addition to the five non-duality books made available without charge by Andy Gugar, Jr. (see “FREEBIES” above), you can now access nearly 3,300 posts for any topics of interest to you.
Here, with those who are still driven to talk about "God," the "Son of God," the "Holy Spirit," "Buddha," "Krishna," etc., etc., etc., the invitation to them is to view those as verbs, not nouns.
THE EXPLANATION
If looked at as nouns, they point to illusions and are, therefore, a total waste of time to even discuss; if looked at as verbs which are resulting in certain sane but rare behaviors among humanity, then they are worthy of some attention during the relative existence.
Meaning? There are members of certain groups who say things such as "My concept of God in the past was of a weak God, an absentee God, A Santa Claus-type God, a mean, punishing, vindictive God, etc. Today, I am in close contact with a loving and caring God whom I worship and praise and glorify and give thanks to."
The reply to that usually goes like this: "If you are in contact with a God that wants to be worshipped and praised and glorified, then you're dealing with someone like yourself - a narcissist - and hanging out with narcissists will never bring an end to your narcissism (that narcissism evidenced by the fact that you think you are "godly").
Next, in the phrase 'loving and caring God,' any supposed God that truly had her or his act together would tell you that the totally irrelevant part of that phrase is 'God' and that the only part that is relevant is the "loving and caring" part.
"That is, a non-narcissistic god / goddess would say, "I care not an iota about being worshipped and praised and glorified by you or anyone else. How arrogant and insecure and needy would I have to be to want that? Forget the man-made, dreamed up noun 'God' and focus on the 'God as a verb' understanding and then go forth and let loving and caring be verbs - not adjectives - and let them generate the act of love and the act of caring and let those actions manifest through you."
Yeshu'a (Jesus) and Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis were spot on:
"No one shall ever see 'the kingdom of heaven.' It is within"
--Yeshu'a (Jesus)
and
"Heaven and earth shall fade away."
--Yeshu'a (Jesus)
and
"Heaven and hell are not geographic places
but are states of mind, nothing more than
concepts dreamed up by men."
--Pope John Paul II
"There is no hell."
--Pope Francis, the current pope
in an interview with journalist Eugenio Scalfari,
a writer used by the Pope to issue off the record
teachings which become a part of the Papal Magisterium.
[That said, would that the popes who have shown the courage to reject a core concept of their dogma - namely, "hell" - would find the additional courage required to question the very existence of their institution in light of the centuries-long cover-up of their history of raping children and in light of the mental and emotional and psychological scarring of billions of their members past and present.
And that need for courage also applies as questions need to be asked about why so many other sky cults are still being supported and allowed to continue to exist as well. When certain types of programming and conditioning have been shown to blind the masses, they should end. Will they? Not likely. Why?
Because what the masses think and say and do is most influenced by the international crime families which hold sway over the masses as criminals conduct their planet-wide operations. What are the major international crime families and which are the most influential and have the largest memberships?
The Mafia / La Cosa Nostra; the Catholic Church (with it 1.2 billion followers); Protestant and Evangelical Churches (with over 1.2 billion followers) like the one I was raised in where the youth director molested and sexually assaulted young girls; big business which has long created environments in which people have been abused; powerful political bodies like the U.S. Congress, etc., etc., etc.)
With all of those crime families, neither the followers nor the leadership ever voluntarily step down or shut down their criminal activities. Be they gangs, organized crime families, religions, big business, politicians, etc., they all want control and they all want power and they all want money, and nothing internal will interfere with the driving forces at play.
The masses must demand that all those in charge must step down and their groups and institutions must shut down, and there's the real problem because the continuation of their crimes are enabled not as much by the people running such crime organizations as they are enabled by the masses of people who - wanting some perceived "payoff" - remain involved with them and give them money and support them and aid and abet the continued existence of those criminal enterprises and thus facilitate the ability of church criminals and political criminals and other types of criminals to continue to commit their crimes.]
Here's
the direct link to the VIDEO VERSION
of the "Awakening Together" satsang session with Regina and Jacqueline referenced earlier, 18 MARCH 2018
If preferred, here's
the direct link to the AUDIO VERSION
of that session.
