Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Hearing the Voice of God


Shabd Mystic

Recommended Posts

I too have had similar experiences, but I have attributed it to the soul rather than specifically to god. Really, it's probably the same thing and we just use different terminology, but I think of the soul as partially seperate from god as I view any such being as more of a passive force (as related to this universe) and that the only direct interaction is usually carried out by the soul - if people listen to it.

I've had very strong impressions that I shouldn't take a specific route to get to a certain place, at times when I've ignored the impression I've either been in an accident or a near miss, times when I took the alternate route were uneventful. At one time I knew there would be a deer in the road, and there was one around a bend that had I not said anything before the bend, we probably would have hit.

The reason I attribute it more to a soul / collective unconsciousness is because it most often involves other people... I know what they're thinking or they respond to something I've not said aloud, I know when someone is going to call me, things like that are the most common.

The information I get usually isn't so much in words as it is impressions or images. I almost never hear a voice telling me things - audibly or in my head - I just know. It's the same way I get ideas for my artwork too, the images just appear in my head, like I'm seeing a photograph or stillframe of something.

I agree with all this. I call it god because my expericne of the collective/cosmic consciousness is self aware self directed and reponsive It expresses a personal interest in me. I t has great wisdom/knowledge and power So I label it god. "God" is merely a human linguistic attachment to a human intepretation of information.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If God chooses to speak to you, you don't need to specially do anything. If you choose to speak to God, fasting may help to show your sincerety though.

If God chooses to speak to you He will first have to prove to you that He's God. That's why prophets are almost exclusively have supernatural experience through which God will give you the proof that He's God. He may give you something that you didn't even notice at first, or noticed that didn't what it meant to say. Then you may use the rest of your life to study who God is then all of a sudden you may notice that He gave you something which can actually distinguish Him from any other spirits. In some other situations, He may give you the proof which allows you to recognise that He's God right away.

But anyway before He actually choose to speak to you, He will first identify Himself or leave you with some clues that in you later study you'll be able to distinguish Him from any other spirits. The second characteristics of 'God speaking to you' is that He can confirm His own messages through futuric events. For example, He allows you to make of prophecy then make it come to pass as a proof that you are actually holding God's message. Actually if you are truly holding God's message, you will be able to see miracles after miracles, signs after signs, prophecies after prophecies till you no longer doubt. So whenver you doubt that whether it's your delutions, He will give signs and prophecies related to the message you are holding.

For an example, When God asks you to deliver a cup to a certain place. He properly will speak to you with a voice or give you a dream to instruct you what to do with the cup. On the other hand, you may doubt that may be the voice is your own delution, the dream may be just an coincidence. He will then confirm His own message by giving out miracles or prophecies (anyway exclusively brain-free and future-related). Say, He will give you another dream to say that "tomorrow when you wake up, you shall see that there's a crack in the cup you are going to delievered". So you woke up and found that the originally good cup suddenly is with a noticeable crack on it. Then you can doubt again to say that "perhaps the crack was already there that I just didn't notice". Then He will give yet another dream to say that tomorrow when you wake up, you shall see the crack disappears". So the next morning you would find that the crack was gone.

This is just the basics, He can actually convey truly complicated messages that it may go so complicated that if they may drive you insane if not delivered properly.

Absolutely correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History's great mystics, including Jesus Himself, have taught that many things can be seen or heard that mimic God and are anything but.

That includes voices, prophesies and miracles.

It's the human ego that lets us believe that "I" am even worthy of such things that allows us to be so taken in.

There is also a saying about "by their fruits shall the know them " I use that to make logical conclusions about any instruction i get from god. ANd These gifts are a aprt of the hman expericnes not unique to anyone special

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had fogotten a similar experience with a 4 digit lock (10000 combinations .) A student in my class wanted to open another students guitar case which was locked with such a combination lock. I just "knew" the combination, and said, "try ****." The case opened and i was left trying to explain to the student how i knew the combination.

Whenever I try to tap into this source by will power, it doesn't work - I only feel emptiness in its place. I think I can never want it to happen. It comes when it comes. "it" decides when it's going to message me. If there's an intelligence behind it, such as "God" as you refer to it, that makes sense. About God, from my experiences with my spirit I don't feel any institutionalized religion I've encountered is close enough to what I sensed there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I try to tap into this source by will power, it doesn't work - I only feel emptiness in its place. I think I can never want it to happen. It comes when it comes. "it" decides when it's going to message me. If there's an intelligence behind it, such as "God" as you refer to it, that makes sense. About God, from my experiences with my spirit I don't feel any institutionalized religion I've encountered is close enough to what I sensed there.

This is much my own experience. It takes no effort, in fact as you point out if you have to think about it, it wont work; and it comes when needed, but not on demand. Amd yes I chose a form of religion which suited me, but none is required. The relationship with, "the source/god/ the cosmic consciousness" is a personal, one on one thing, which requires no institutionalised framework unless you want to add, or choose, one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shabd Mystic

History's great mystics, including Jesus Himself, have taught that many things can be seen or heard that mimic God and are anything but.

Apparently, anti-mystics as well. The Vineyard Movement, whose members are the subject of Luhrmann's study, come into tremendous criticism from more conservative Protestants. Part of the critique turns on whether charisms are truly Biblical, and almost amusingly, if bigotry can be amusing, whether they are "too Catholic." But another part concerns "opening oneelf up" to ungodly beings. That part sounds much like the pious case against Ouija boards.

The Vineyard Movement itself split over something called "The Toronto Blessing." One of the Vimeyard churches, Toronto Airport, found that laughing fits among the congregants were a manifestation of the Holy Spirit. When laughter became "animal noises," more conservative Vineyardists encouraged the Toronto church to go its own way.

So, it seems that there may be a real problem identifying the source of things. Also, I think the Toronto Blessing story illustrates that when you unleash what is hidden within, you may be surprised with what comes up.

I look at things from a Jungian perspective. It's all unconscious contents as far as I am concerned. The problem is how to allow contents to enter consciousness without overwhelming consciousness, and to get all aspects of the self working together harmoniously and fruitfully.

It's the human ego that lets us believe that "I" am even worthy of such things that allows us to be so taken in.

Ego inflation (searchable) is a definite danger among people who make progress in exploring the unconscious contents. The source of difficulty isn't so much a pre-existing concept of self-worth, but rather the interpretation of experience, experience which is, after all, a reason to think that the consciousness is "special," not only when compared with other people, but also among the functions of the mind and self.

Inflation is another way in which consciousness can be overwhelmed by this stuff, subtler than be being rendered incoherent and bewildered (like a 60's stoner on an acid trip), but dysfunctional all the same.

-

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it seems that there may be a real problem identifying the source of things.

Which is the point I was making exactly.

Ego inflation (searchable) is a definite danger among people who make progress in exploring the unconscious contents. The source of difficulty isn't so much a pre-existing concept of self-worth, but rather the interpretation of experience, experience which is, after all, a reason to think that the consciousness is "special," not only when compared with other people, but also among the functions of the mind and self.

Inflation is another way in which consciousness can be overwhelmed by this stuff, subtler than be being rendered incoherent and bewildered (like a 60's stoner on an acid trip), but dysfunctional all the same.

-

Ego inflation is a huge problem on mystical paths, especially those of a lower order (Adi Da and Osho are prime examples). Since you recommended a Google search, I will return the favor, check out "Sri Aurobindo, the intermediate zone" (without the paranthesis). Or read it here:

Sri Aurobindo's Letters on Yoga - The Intermediate Zone

It's a great read and written from actual experience and not at all "imagination." Countless mystic now and throughout history have experienced the same thtings he describes.

In one part he says:

The sadhak thinks that he is no longer in the old small consciousness at all, because he feels in contact with something larger or more powerful, and yet the old consciousness is still there, not really abolished. He feels the control or influence of some Power, Being or Force greater than himself, aspires to be its instrument and thinks he has got rid of ego; but this delusion of egolessness often covers an exaggerated ego.

The ultimate goal of true mysticism to to kill the ego. The ego is what stands between you and God and mysticism seeks to destroy that.

.

Edited by Shabd Mystic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you won't believe me but one time when I was standing in our kitchen I heard a voice in my head tell me that my wife was fixing to walk in to the kitchen and say "thanks for going with me." About a minute after I heard that voice tell me that my wife walked in and said those exact same words. I had gone to meeting in town with her which was 45 minutes away and she didn't say "thanks for going with me" till we got back and that voice told me she was fixing to do that.

A friend of mine at church, Cecil, who is now a 71 year old man told me a story about hearing a voice say to him "Run Cecil Run!" When Cecil was a teenager he was standing in a field and a big thunderstorm came up. There was one big tree in the field and Cecil went and got under it to keep from getting wet. He told me he heard a voice say to him "Run Cecil Run!" but the first time he heard it wasn't as loud, and he just stood there under the tree. The second time he heard the voice it was a little louder and it said "run cecil run!" And finally the third time the voice was insistent and loud and it said "RUN CECIL RUN!" So he finally took off running and when he got away from the tree a bit a big giant bolt of lightening struck the tree and Cecil told me if he'd been under that tree he would have been killed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More about the ego and mysticism:

Paul Brunton taught that between the state of ordinary man and the state of the matured mystic lies a perilous and deceptive region known as the astral plane, the intermediate zone, the hall of illusion, and so on, which spiritual aspirants can reach through concentration, meditation, self-conquest, and study. Brunton asserted that the danger is that once there, then their egoism becomes stimulated by the subtle forces they have evoked, their emotional nature becomes more sensitive and more fluid, their imaginative power becomes more active and is less restrained, and if they then fall victim to spiritual error regarding their state, the result is swollen vanity, superstitious credulity, emotions run riot, and wild imagination. He considered this a major factor in explaining the human wreckage found on the spiritual path.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't hear anything." - Zarakitty

It's got to be quiet. No noise, no music, no TV, no cars, etc. Quiet. The times when I've had the most transcendental experiences are when I was zoning out, not really thinking about anything. When I heard that voice tell me what my wife was fixing to say I was in the kitchen washing dishes, staring out the window, sort of zoning out, staring out into the woods.

If your mind is always full of "this world" it's kind of difficult to listen to anything coming through from the other world. This world is loud and easily drowns out information coming from the other side. Repetitive tasks where you do the same thing over and over again, where you don't really have to think, are excellent for helping one have spiritual experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shabd Mystic

We seem to be in agreement that people who mess around inside their heads might end up thinking more highly of themselves than is warranted. I stuck the note about being "seacrhable" onto the term ego inflation because it really is a specific term with a specific meaning, as opposed to some descriptive phrase I happened to cook up for the occasion.

I don't see any attraction in killing the ego, at least not as Jungians use the word. I'm not even sure it is possible in a living human being, except temporarily, and it will grow back. Jungians think a strong ego is a component of mental health, although "strength" is a tricky term to define.

I came across an interesting heuristic proposed by Marie-Louise von Franz, Jung's chief disciple. She noted that other people are annoyed both by inflated egos (I think it's pretty obvious how that would be so), but also annoyed by too much dininished ones as well. So, she thinks if your egotism isn't annoying to others around you, you could be doing it right.

Jungians are Goldilockseans: for almost anything, they seek not too much one way, and not too much the other way, but instead, something just right.

Artaxerxes

It's got to be quiet

Cecil wasn't being quiet.

Quiet is good once in a while, and it's nice to have an "apophatic" break between "everyday life" and turning inward. But as it says in the OP's piece (and in the blog thing I posed), the style of prayer (or whatever you do when you address Leland Stanford, Jr.) that gets results for the people in the article is "kataphatic." That's not necessarily all that quiet. The Vineyard Movement's transitional exercise (what separates the sacred from the mudane) appears to be a coffee klatch.

It comes when it comes, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any attraction in killing the ego, at least not as Jungians use the word. I'm not even sure it is possible in a living human being, except temporarily, and it will grow back. Jungians think a strong ego is a component of mental health, although "strength" is a tricky term to define.

I came across an interesting heuristic proposed by Marie-Louise von Franz, Jung's chief disciple. She noted that other people are annoyed both by inflated egos (I think it's pretty obvious how that would be so), but also annoyed by too much dininished ones as well. So, she thinks if your egotism isn't annoying to others around you, you could be doing it right.

Jungians are Goldilockseans: for almost anything, they seek not too much one way, and not too much the other way, but instead, something just right.

I don't want to get into all this again as I cover this extensively in an older thread, but I will instead just post a few (very few) quotes about this from my vast collection of material on this subject (about how eliminating the ego is the ultimate goal of any 'true" mysticism):

"Real rebirth is dying from the ego into the spirit." ~ Ramana Maharshi

"In Kali Yuga communion with the Sound is the only true devotion by which to

achieve liberation from ego."

~ Guru Amardas

"The pathway to heaven is narrow indeed,

Its breadth is the tenth of a mustard seed;

The elephant cannot through it pass,

For ego bars the gate, alas!"

~ Nanak

"The lover is converted into the Beloved. That indeed is called true love.

Forgetting his own ego, he remains absorbed in the One." ~ Dadu Dayal

"The invisible is inside but is not seen,

Because of the separating wall of egotism."

~ Guru Arjan

"The foundation of the Buddha's teachings lies in compassion, and the reason for

practicing the teachings is to wipe out the persistence of ego, the number-one

enemy of compassion." ~ Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama

"See who is the doubter, who is the thinker. It is the ego. Hold it; the other

thoughts will die away - the ego will be left pure. See the source from where

the ego arises and abide in it. That is pure consciousness." ~ Ramana Maharshi

"Renounce thou thy ego

And turn thou into dust

And on thy body let the grass grow

If in the radiance of thy Master

Thou dost turn into ashes,

These ashes would be an alchemy

That would transmute thee into gold."

~ Shams-i-Tabriz

"In the body floweth the Pool of Immortality,

By drinking its nectar thou dost lose egoity

And birth and rebirth do for ever cease."

~ Namdev

"There are numerous sidetracks which lead to a distorted ego-centered version of

spirituality; we can deceive ourselves into thinking we are developing

spiritually when instead we are strengthening our egocentricity through

spiritual techniques."

~ Chögyam Trungpa

"The source of wisdom and power, of love and beauty, is within ourselves, but

not within our egos. It is within our consciousness. Indeed, its presence

provides us with a conscious contrast which enables us to speak of the ego as if

it were something different and apart: it is the true Self whereas the ego is

only an illusion of the mind." ~ Paul Brunton

"Give up egotism, efface the distinction of 'mine' and 'thine', and be humble

and discriminating like a little ant. Then alone shalt thou be able to pick up

and eat the sweet grains of sugar out of the dirt of the world."

~ Vani of Sant Ravidas

"The lover is converted into the Beloved. That indeed is called true love.

Forgetting his own ego, he remains absorbed in the One." ~ Dadu Dayal

"Standing on the bare ground, — my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted

into infinite space, — all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent

eye-ball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of the Universal Being circulate

through me; I am part or particle of God." ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You learn sooner or later that you are not running the show and that if you

relax, the show runs better. Things will happen better if you just relax; many

things are under control in many respects. You quit and things happen, you let

the door open, you stop the obstructing, you eliminate the ego. The ego is one

of the biggest obstructions to the achievement of anything." ~ Richard Rose

"The ego constantly competes with the spirit for control over your inner voice."

~ Darren L. Johnson

"Ego is to the true self what a flashlight is to a spotlight." ~ John Bradshaw

"With the disappearance of God the Ego moves forward to become the sole

divinity." ~ Dorothee Sölle

"If you want to reach a state of bliss, then go beyond your ego and the internal

dialogue. Make a decision to relinquish the need to control, the need to be

approved, and the need to judge. Those are the three things the ego is doing all

the time. It's very important to be aware of them every time they come up." ~

Deepak Chopra

"Enlightenment is ego's ultimate disappointment." ~ Chögyam Trungpa

"The mystical notion ... is that your deepest Self transcends both good and bad,

so by accepting absolutely everything that happens to you - by equally embracing

both good and bad with equanimity - you can transcend the ego altogether. The

idea is not to have one thing that is good smash into another thing called my

ego but to simply rise above both." ~ Ken Wilber

"Everything that intrudes upon the mental stillness in this highly critical

stage must be rejected, no matter how virtuous or how "spiritual" a face it puts

on. Only by the lapse of all thought, by the loss of all thinking capacity can

he maintain this rigid stillness as it should be maintained. It is here alone

that the last great battle will be fought and that the first great fulfillment

will be achieved. That battle will be the one which will give the final

deathblow to the ego; that fulfillment will be the union with the Overself after

the ego's death. Both the battle and the fulfillment must take place within the

stillness; they must not be a merely intellectual matter of thought alone nor a

merely emotional matter of feeling alone. Here in the stillness both thought and

emotion must die and the ego will then lose their powerful support. Therefore

here alone it is possible to tackle the ego with any possibility of victory."

~ Paul Brunton

I came across an interesting heuristic proposed by Marie-Louise von Franz, Jung's chief disciple. She noted that other people are annoyed both by inflated egos (I think it's pretty obvious how that would be so), but also annoyed by too much dininished ones as well. So, she thinks if your egotism isn't annoying to others around you, you could be doing it right.

Jungians are Goldilockseans: for almost anything, they seek not too much one way, and not too much the other way, but instead, something just right.

Carl Jung was at the very most a "beginner" as a mystic and he was barely cracking the surface when he died. I enjoy his work (have you yet looked at "The Red Book?") but he is a lightweight in terms of his knowledge about mysticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

double

Edited by Lookitisoneofthosepeople
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eastern societies by default are more cohesive with emphasis on the group and not the individual. The West is not as collective as focuses on the self.

Of course the philosophies will differ. We can learn from both.

I don't see a need for dueling mystics or rejecting either view. Even claiming Jung was a mystic is a debate in itself.

Jung does make scientific attempt to understand and explain mysticism and not just partake in it. Whatever elements I find on my path, whatever practices I incorporate, I want to know how it works, where it came from, and to understand not just from the inside as a practitioner but from outside as well with an academic understanding.

Of course Jungian concepts have more to offer me at this stage, I just don't see a need to negatively compare.

Edited by Lookitisoneofthosepeople
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shabd Mystic

Carl Jung was at the very most a "beginner" as a mystic and he was barely cracking the surface when he died. I enjoy his work (have you yet looked at "The Red Book?") but he is a lightweight in terms of his knowledge about mysticism.

Yes, I was an early reader of the fasimile edition of the Red Book, and my current avatar is a detail from one of Jung's paintings there.

It is a less charming feature of discussions which concern personal opinions, when one person comments adversely on the person of someone who holds a different opinion. There is some further irony when the point of the comment is the need to get beyond ego.

I disagree with you about the ego, perhaps because we appear to be discussing different things. I also believe that the point of mysticism is to learn from personal experience, not to build a wall of quotes from other people. I would be happy to discuss the ego with you, but if you'd rather not discuss that at this time, then you need only say so.

Look, this is your thread. Your OP, in its entirety, is a link to a profile of an anthropologist who also researches psychology. Her subjects use techniques made accessible in their culture, my culture, by Jung, a psychologist who also researched anthropology.

Jung is on-topic here, and has contributed to the specific concerns that were covered in the Stanford article. Jung was doing this before the subject of the profile was born. Jung had done it before David-Neal thought to try.

Jung knew that he wasn't the first in the world. He had met and conferred with William James, who had surveyed world mystical experience. Jung was also well versed in comparative religion. We seemed to be nearly in agreement that interpretation of these expereinces is fraught. It seems odd to dismiss the perspective of a scholar of Jung's stature and accomplishment.

Look, etc.

I just don't see a need to negatively compare.

It's a web thing :) . To cite Deepak Chopra with reverence and then describe Carl Jung as a "lightweight" speaks for itself. Some negative comparisons happen just by laying two authors side by side. It can't be helped.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see a need for dueling mystics or rejecting either view. Even claiming Jung was a mystic is a debate in itself.

A mystic is one who practices mysticism. It doesn't mean that you have attained any particular "level." There really is no debate about Jung's mysticism, only about how far he went with it.

Of course Jungian concepts have more to offer me at this stage, I just don't see a need to negatively compare.

Good point. Jung is a good place to start. When, and if, you ever move past that stage then you will come to see Jung in a much different light. I shouldn't have "jumped ahead." I wasn't trying to belittel him at all. I like Jung very much. I was just trying to help you, not to attack Jung.

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you cannot just set out to hear the voice of God, or you will never hear it. it is a vain attempt to do so this way. you have to not anticipate it and pray out of selflessness...that "to hear a voice" cannot be your goal or it will not present it.

when you hear it you will know. i heard it 4 times. there is no question of its origin. you KNOW. thats all i can say about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a less charming feature of discussions which concern personal opinions, when one person comments adversely on the person of someone who holds a different opinion.

That's funny. It is a less charming feature of discussions when someone else ascribes false personal motives to someone who shares something he doesn't like to hear. If I say that a first-grader is not as knowlegable as Albert Einstein that would be me merely stating a fact. But to that child's father it would probably be seen as some sort of 'personal attack" or that someone "comments adversely."

There is some further irony when the point of the comment is the need to get beyond ego.

The only thing even remotely related in any way to the term "ironic" is that you believe that because someone posts something about ego that he believes he himself is in any way egoless. Or that you fail to see that your own need to attack, no matter how "subtle" you try to make it, is just dripping with ego.

I also believe that the point of mysticism is to learn from personal experience, not to build a wall of quotes from other people.

A wall of quotes was used to make the point very clear. It obviously wasn't adequate for you because all these people weren't well known enough for you or accomplished enough for you. What do they know? Certainly not as much as you. No ego there ...

Evidently it would have been much better had I just stated what "I" believed. After all, I am so well known as an authority on this subject under my false name of "Shabd Mystic."

I would be happy to discuss the ego with you, but if you'd rather not discuss that at this time, then you need only say so.

I have no interest in a discussion because it is clear that this is merely a debate for you. It's an ego game. It's about "being right."

I have no desire for any of that. You made a couple statements and I have extensive personal experience in this area and knew those statements to be false. I was just trying to help you see the tuth. If you want to blow away what I said and cling to your own beliefs have at it. I don't benefit in any way from whatever you choose to believe. I was only trying to help you believe the truth instead of some false opinions.

The quotes obiously were worthless and so I'm glad I didn't waste my time posting 100 more.

Look, this is your thread. Your OP, in its entirety, is a link to a profile of an anthropologist who also researches psychology. Her subjects use techniques made accessible in their culture, my culture, by Jung, a psychologist who also researched anthropology.

My linking to the article wasn't any kind of endorsement of what it said. I read it and knew some people here would enjoy reading it and discussing it so I posted it. I disagree with some of it. It wasn't put here to try to push my beliefs or knowledge on anyone.

Jung is on-topic here, and has contributed to the specific concerns that were covered in the Stanford article. Jung was doing this before the subject of the profile was born. Jung had done it before David-Neal thought to try.

Jung knew that he wasn't the first in the world. He had met and conferred with William James, who had surveyed world mystical experience. Jung was also well versed in comparative religion. We seemed to be nearly in agreement that interpretation of these expereinces is fraught. It seems odd to dismiss the perspective of a scholar of Jung's stature and accomplishment.

All I dismissed was Jungs views on mysticism. I dismissed them because I, personally, KNOW many of them were wrong. I don't "think" they were wrong. I know it. Not from reading about mysticism but by living it.

I wouldn't say that about Jung's ideas about psychology because he knew 1,000 times more than I do about that subject. But I will argue his ideas about mysticism because I know much more about that than he did. And he was a "lightweight" on a mystical scale. He was just starting to learn. What he accomplished was great, but he had just broken the surface.

It's a web thing :) . To cite Deepak Chopra with reverence and then describe Carl Jung as a "lightweight" speaks for itself.

Deepak Chopra is a clown. So are some others I listed like Paul Brunton, Ken Wilber and others. I listed their quotes because you showed me such limited knowledge of mysticism in holding up Jung's views as anything besides "interesting" that I figured you might be the type who would appreciate such people.

I was trying to get you t understand what they said, not be impressed with who said it. You are a great example of the "Internet ego" that pervades message boards like this. We could be in a discussion about physics and if I wrote that Madonna once said "E = MC-squared" you would be on here bashing me for quoting Madonna instead of arguing what she said and trying to prove it wrong.

That's a child ego game played by Internet message board people who care only about "being right." In your case you ignore some of the world's most famous and revered mystics all saying the same thing and point out that I quoted one guy you don't like. You think that somehow makes you appear "right" and appear smart and you completely fail to realize what it actually shows everyone about you.

To throw that at me and try to insult me with it is hilarious. I'm done playing your ego games but I appreciate you helping to redefine the term "lightweight." Thanks. :D

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you cannot just set out to hear the voice of God, or you will never hear it. it is a vain attempt to do so this way. you have to not anticipate it and pray out of selflessness...that "to hear a voice" cannot be your goal or it will not present it.

when you hear it you will know. i heard it 4 times. there is no question of its origin. you KNOW. thats all i can say about that.

The mind is an amazing thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everyone has their ego on display including eight bits but his, as seen here, is so much smaller than most people's. You even characterized his attack as "subtle" while your attacks in my view were (past tense) very overt and excessive. I've learned so much from him. Usually he shares so much knowledge which is interesting and allows understanding.

The difference is that his knowledge, at least what he chooses to share, is based on the ideas of the collective, consensus, while mysticism is highly esoteric and based on personal revelation which doesn't translate as well to the collective. Personal insights are hard to impress on others.

Since mysticism deals with what is not on the surface we can expect most to not involve themselves. The mystic is not better than others. The knowledge gained is personal and won't work for the masses and not because they are defected or unwilling but it just isn't part of their framework.

I learned today that the group tends to attack the individual or sese of individuality. It is not good versus evil but simply the fact that the collective/impersonal is opposite of the individual/personal.

Being a lightweight mystic is no insult. A better gauge is how many can we help in small ways. Some have a want to help others in grand ways but a want doesn't translate into results. Even the greatest aspiration to help others pales in comparison to the smallest actions that others with less knowledge do that actually do help.

We simply cannot have everyone understand what we do as we do. It does not make us smarter and them dumber. That is an illusion. I simply do not think there is a need for "mine is better than yours" when we can learn from all.

Edited by Lookitisoneofthosepeople
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shabd

As I mentioned, I wrote in good-faith reliance on the article you posted without remark, about the accomplishemnts of a Stanford faculty member who studies the anthropology and psychology of personal religious experiences. If mine wasn't the discussion you were looking for, then perhaps next time you might consider including a brief statement of your goals along with your link.

Look

Thank you for the kind words. In the sense I was taliking about, everybody who is functional has an ego. I'd love to improve mine, especially getting more harmony within and without, but there is no part of me that I deny or actively seek to get rid of. Ego has a job to do, and I let mine get on with that, with an occasional reminder to watch where our elbows are :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the idea that some of you might be responding to me but I just wanted to say that I'm not reading any more of this because i'm truly not interested in any competition to see who can be "right." I concede.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever you want to try again to understand each other feel free to open another dialogue. What do you mean by see who is "right"? Right and wrong is black and white thinking and it is grey that should be prefered. There was no comeptition in some of our minds.

Out beyond ideas of right and wrong there is a field. I'll meet you there.

—Rumi

Edited by Lookitisoneofthosepeople
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.