THE NON-DUALITY MESSAGE HAS LONG BEEN WIDESPREAD BUT IT HAS SELDOM BEEN UNDERSTOOD EITHER THEN OR NOW

TODAY'S CONSIDERATIONS

ANNOUNCEMENTS 

1. [See the offer in gold text 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 green text after today's 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." (See the details in the blue text after this post.) 

The point in this series is that the non-dual message has long been widespread but has seldom been understood either then or now. So, to move on . . . 

FURTHER DISCUSSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING SHAKESPEARE'S NON-DUAL QUOTES AND POINTERS 

Shakespeare's Pointer on Ego-State Assumption 

A “metaphor” is “a linguistic device by which one thing is said to be another.” 

The non-dual invitation is to understand that the relative existence is a metaphorical existence, and all metaphors are statements of untruth. For example: 

“I am a spouse.” 

Any belief in a personal identification / an ego-state triggers the use of egotism and other ego-defense mechanisms to defend / support that belief. 

Thus, “I am a spouse” soon leads egotism to upgrade one’s assumed ego-state so that the revised belief soon becomes: 

“I am a super spouse and thus deserve nothing less than a super spouse.” 

Since the belief in “spouse-ness” is a product of acculturation and is merely another lie / false identity which cultures have generated, and since the belief that one can be a “Super Spouse” is a product of acculturation + egotism, the result is . . . a divorce rate which is typically in the range of 50-60%. 

How's that? 

All ego-states / assumed personality identifications require a co-dependent, counterpart, corresponding, complementary player: 

For one to be able to assume and play the role of “employer,” that person must have . . . “an employee”; 

for one to be able to assume and play the role of “teacher,” that person must have . . . “a student”; 

for one to be able to assume and play the role of “leader,” that person must have . . . “a follower” or “followers”; 

and 

for one to be able to assume and play the role of “spouse,” that person must have . . . “a spouse.” 

Yet always egotism kicks in to defend and support and perpetuate false identities / ego-states. 

Therefore, 

for one to be able to assume and play the role of “super employer,” that person must have . . . “a super employee” or “super employees"; 

for one to be able to assume and play the role of “super teacher,” that person must have . . . “a super student” or “super students”; 

for one to be able to assume and play the role of “super leader,” that person must have . . . “a super follower” or “super followers”; 

and 

for one to be able to assume and play the role of “super spouse,” that person must have . . . “a super spouse.” 

Yet that desire / expectation is impossible to fulfill because there is no such thing as a “spouse,” much less “a super spouse.” All such false, culture-inspired and egotism-driven identities are bogus, false, not real at all. 

Some have asked, “Are you surprised that a divorce rate which is typically in the range of 50-60% is so commonplace?” 

The answer: “You bet. I would anticipate that the rate would be more like 95-100%, seeing how the characters involved in every marriage are based in delusions which are magnified by egotism-driven distortions and false self perspectives.” 

Yet the understanding is that all personal identities are driven by hidden motives involving desires or fears (or usually both), so it is also understandable why 40-50% do not divorce but “hang in there” for whatever payoff it is that they want. 

Add to the fact that the same 40-50% are asleep and therefore immune to being fully aware of the lie which they are living and then the lower-than-expected divorce rate can be comprehended. 

Moreover, remember that 59% of all of the women killed annually in the U.S. and 41% of all of the men killed annually in the U.S. are killed during a “breakup.” And what is a “breakup,” really? 

It is a breaking or shattering of a false identity which is believed to have been real; 

thus, a “breakup” is merely an event in which a cherished ego-state finds out that the co-dependent, counterpart, corresponding, complementary player (whose role playing allowed an ego-state / assumed personality identification to falsely believe that it was real) has announced that she / he is not going to be playing that counterpart role anymore. 

Now those killed during a “breakup” are not retroactively declared by record keepers to have been automatically divorced prior to their having been murdered, so the “divorce rate” / the “ended marriage rate” is actually far, far higher than reported. 

Now does all that sound pessimistic? It is not. It is realistic, which the assumed identities involved in the “breakups” most assuredly were not. 

Is the answer to ban marriage? Of course not. The answer would be for persons to wake up and realize what is real and what is not. As noted in a post more than five years ago: 

The non-dual take is that "husbanding" can happen without believing the lie that part of one’s actual identity is “The Husband” (who soon self-upgrades to “The Super Husband”) and that "wifing" can happen without believing the lie that part of one’s actual identity is “The Wife” (who soon self-upgrades to “The Super Wife”). 

Were that to be the case, then (a) pure witnessing could happen and (b) emotional intoxication could end because "the realized" feel but do not emote. 

Emoting / ego-state driven-emotional intoxication results in the 59% / 41% “murder rates during breakups” mentioned above. 

On the other hand, if one is not lost in the dream of false personality identifications and someone says, “I’m leaving you,” then the response might be, “Well, go in peace” or “Rock and roll” or “Goodbye” or even . . . silence. 

But if false roles and metaphors are taken to be true, then the toll can be this: 

When metaphors are taken to be true and when the accumulation-mentality leaves one with a sense that there is never enough and that no one is ever "good" enough, then misery and suffering are sure to follow at some point. 

The realized poet Shakespeare offered this non-dual consideration in metaphorical form as a pointer toward truth: 

“All’s the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely players.” Meaning? 

Meaning that nothing in what is called “the world” can be taken to be any more real than what is seen on a theatrical stage. In other words, what is seen is never the real. 

So, what is this? 

99%+ would say, “Why, that’s a brick, Floyd, you damn dimwit.” 

Were I to put the brick beneath an electron microscope and say, “Well look at it again, then you might reconsider your answer.” 

Were it to be looked at under that microscope, what would be seen is a spinning collection of subatomic particles. What the brick appears to be is not what it really is at all. 

That does not suggest that one blogger who says “Nothing is real” has the slightest clue of what she is talking about. The brick, and the elements of which it is composed, are all very real. What is not real is its temporary, assumed appearance. 

Next, while thorns can be used to remove thorns – that is, while “Non-Dualists” might offer many pointers along the “path” - in the end it is to be seen that the truth cannot be stated, that the world is not a stage, and that the non-realized are indeed merely acting like actors and players . . . playing the roles which they were assigned or which they have assumed. In the end, though, it is seen that such pointers are not statements of any final truth, either. 

The invitation is to understand this: the form is never the substance, and the appearance is never the real; 

furthermore,

what is taken to be “a woman” or “a man” or any of the roles being played thereby involves nothing more than persons playing roles that were dreamed up by their current culture or by members of an ancient culture whose superstition-and-ignorance-based beliefs are still assumed to be true by those persons who are presently superstitious and / or ignorant. 

To further understand that “your world” is an all-metaphorical mental construct, consider another definition of metaphor: “the use of a word or phrase that identifies something as being what it is not.” 

The use of illusion-and-delusion-inspiring metaphors that dominate the thinking and beliefs and talk of all cultures and societies is so prevalent that if you became awake to each one you heard or used during any given day, the mere act of cataloguing all of them would likely be exhausting. 

In the relative realm in which duality is considered real, all persons (all of the non-realized) will feel as if they are “multiple things” as a result of the fact that persons are so programmed and conditioned and acculturated that they take metaphors to be statements of truth. 

The phrase “I am” is followed in any given day by thousands of nouns or adjectives which misconstrue “self and Self”; personas for the real; the perceived and the misperceived for reality; nonsensical thoughts for truth; false beliefs for facts; fiction for non-fiction, ad infinitum. 

The result is a planet filled with persons who feel disjointed, torn, broken, in parts, shattered, fractured, cracked, split, ripped, apart from, and divided. Those are only some of the symptoms of the malady of duality and the dualistic thinking generated by the “mind” and by belief in the implications of a multiplicity of metaphors rather than the Oneness. 

With that “mindset” or “frame of mind,” how could one possibly feel anything other than “apart from”? Add in the egotism that comes along with the assumption of metaphor-inspired ego-states and it is a sense of separation rather than any sense of at-one-ment that most often characterizes the relative existence. 

When a man confessed that at a recent funeral he saw a woman with a “short, manly style of hair” and instantly judged her for that mode, he saw how the “mind” really does work to try to separate a person from everyone and everything. This suggestion was offered for his consideration: 

“As you saw when judging another person based on appearance, the mind / ego is always about separation and better-than-ness. All non-realized persons who look into a mirror see a 10, and all non-realized persons who look into a crowd see a 0, see . . . nothing.” 

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) whose Vatican Bank worked for decades with the Mafia while laundering mob earnings (for a 15% all-profit charge by the Bank); 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

or 

You can click on video "Number Ten" in the upper right-hand column on this page. 

If preferred, here's 

the direct link to the AUDIO VERSION 

of that session.