Click here to go to the next issue.

Marcia:
>What does everybody think about tribalism anyway?
>Does it have a function? Did it serve a purpose?

Greg:
Tribalism (preference for one's own, not necessarily hating others) might
be an intermediate stage in the expansion of one's love and identification.
One starts out loving/identifying with one's own body and urges. Then one
learns to love one or two others, then the family, the extended family, the
neighborhood, the tribe, the country, maybe later all of humanity. Then
later all sentient beings, all of phenomenality, till all of what-is is
loved, is love.

Plato alludes to this in a section I believe in Symposium where Love and
its universalizing are discussed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Xan:

What if love is not so much a connector
- like a love conduit -
but the sea in which we are all swimming,
and it is swimming in us.

No boundaries at all.
Not bodies
Not karmic ties
Not family ties
Not commonalities.
Not shared history

Just love everywhere.

Maybe our only boundary
is where we let ourselves
notice it.


Marcia:

I really wish with all my heart that I felt it like you
do. That would make it truly wonderful. I am just
not there. Yet. :-)

I feel it like a conduit. It feels like the connector
which allows the current to flow from one to the
other.

I can't think my way out of this conundrum.

Glo:

Marcia, try this way to see it...
Love is not the connector, its the current.

Okay, you are plugged into the outlet, the electricity lights you
up.
Similarly, me, and everyone else.
The source of our light is the same, right?
I do not need "your personal electricity"..I have my own source.
I will however lend you an extension cord, if you are in the dark
and can't find the outlet.

That is when we touch and connect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

a snip of the continuing discussion between
Dan & Ivan:

Dan:
If we're talking about what's *really* important here, I would see
spiritual reality as the overriding and all-encompassing important area for
awareness, and this is interconnected with psychological and possibly
physiological change. As far as the gradual change aspect that originated
this tangent we went on - I do think that it is in the psychological area
that the gradual change is experienced and worked on.
It is the psychological acceptance of the eternal (nontemporal)reality that
can change gradually, although that nontemporal aspect, in and of itself,
is timeless. Reality is timeless, yet time continues. In other words, the
psyche continues to have a "life in time" so to speak, although it is aware
of the inherent timelessness of reality. In this "life in time" -- day to
day events, interactions, planning meetings, speaking, going to a
conference, etc. -- there can be a gradual shift that increasingly
accomodates and integrates the atemporal timeless One.
To me, this means that eternity is in love with the productions of time, a
la William Blake.

To clarify - my focus is on the point where time meets eternity, where the
instantaneous meets the gradual. My focus isn't on eliminating time or
human development. Sometimes when I read postings by people who seem to be
aiming at eliminating time or the body or relative experience, I find
myself feeling that my approach must be different. My awareness of what
reality is and how this works isn't about eliminating one aspect for the
sake of another -- more of a shift in emphasis and direction for awareness,
while life goes on. As I go in this direction, I am discovering a basis
for appreciation of life, for its simplicity and complexity, and for
acceptance. I find for me, it has an instantaneous and a gradual aspect to
it, simultaneously. As something that is present, infinite, and yet which
can deepen in terms of appreciation, assimilation, and incorporation into
day to day life...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rony:
It seems that changes in the brain should allow for a different kind of
cognition. I mean perceiving things as they come for their own impact
rather than "recognizing" them by way of comparision with an item from
the field of the "known".
The faculties of memory and comparision would maybe secondary to the
main activity, which is facing "what is" and responding with no
intermediary to the necessary as evident in the inner order of whatever
comes moment to moment.

Dan:
I like your way of putting this. How does one arrange a perception
with no memory involved?

When would memory be used? Why at one time and not at another time?

Something about what you're describing makes sense to me. Immediate
perception would be not in reference to anything else. Perhaps memory can
function in this field of "immediacy" and when memory functions it simply
acts as a kind of reverberation. What I mean is memory itself is changing,
patterns that are recalled today are recalled in a different form than
yesterday. From the field of immmediacy, as memory functions, it too is
changing instant to instant along with all that *is*.

Rony:
Memory in itself is not a danger. Psychological memory is what veils us
from facing what is. For instance, I have a bad date at a restaurant
that has Jasmin odor all over, so I tend to associate that smell with
something negative. But since there is no center - all this is seen and
the association is no longer.
So, what remains is memory of technical things; I don't have to learn
driving each time I need to use a car.
The memory is recalled spontaneously. The switching criterion is "what
is".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the Bridge-L list:


[]

Sandeep:
And I submit that there are "spaces" where eternal Truth and Consciousness
is not two.

Have you heard of a term "SATCHITANAND"

The essence of concsciousness (CHIT) is Truth(SAT) and the flavour of this
is Joy(ANAND).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> How do any of you know
>that your feelings are of God rather than just your egos and desire for
>happiness.

Sandeep:
If the doubt is there, then indeed it has been another "play" of the ego.
If the dew drop doubts whether an Ocean has been attained and not just some
desires being played out, the dew drop still IS.
And the Ocean has not yet happened.

Who doubts?
Never your essence, your soul, your Truth or whatever you want to call "it".
It is your ego which always doubt.
The doubter is no different than the ego itself.
And it is thus that the ego is very useful tool, a very effective
utilatarian tool at a level of existence, which is phenomenal, surfacial,
superficial.
A tool which effectively doubts your ability to achieve "oneness" with an on
rushing vehicle and maintain the awareness at the same time.
So you move ass fairly quickly and look to achieve oneness through more
gentler means.
Difficult, not impossible as Gurdjieff showed.

top of page