individuation

[Guest guest]

The word itself implies not being divided. In -divide-uation.

In Sanskrit it is advaita - not two - u cn see the Skt origin.

So, in Jungian terms, it implies the total surrender of ego consc [wh functs thru duality] n union w/Self [Divine Guest]. At best this cn happen to us in 'peak experiences'. a wee glimpse.

However, having just finished rereading Yogananda's AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A YOGI, there are many accts of those who have experienced samadhi n experienced that bliss. In the West, we have saints n mystics n they hold out the promise that we, too, may exper this. Wiliiam wrote a bk THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE that examines this n a man called Francis? Bucke wrote COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS. In every case, it is blissful n is a gift of grace.

The physical body experiences an echo of this in orgasm, the gift of the lower chakras.

Muktananda explained that when the kundalini reaches the top chakra, a divine union takes place betw a drop of the pineal gland n the pituitary. Wh these unite, they produce 'the blue pearl''.

The Hindus n Buddhists are way ahead of us in the techniques etc. but my hunch is that a lot depends on ones intent n that the masc drive for mastery alone won't cut it. We have also to ALLOW wh is yin, receptive.

U must be sick of my constant mention of LOVE n the Milkstool Principle of Love, Power, n Wisdom. Here is a beautiful quote fr Yogananda:

The Lord ever silently whispers to you: I am Love. But to experience the giving and the gift of love, I divided Myself into three: Love, lover and beloved.

In the BEEJUM BOOK, I describe thru Teak, my exper of being lost wh I was 6 in the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul. The Sufi carpetseller Mustafah explains something that finally became clear to me in later life. The motif of my childhood n the first 2/3rds of my life was 'separation' one way or another fr those I loved so dearly in human ways. He recognized this n if someone cn scan pp197/198 n share it, u will understand what Mustafah was trying to teach me.

I was 53 years old when I finally experienced this n it has blessed me ever since. One really CAN see the Light of the same Div Guest shining out of people's eyes. It answers one of Teak's questions of Gezeebius, "How can you love someone you don't like?!"

Och aweel, time to stop. Howling gale outside, pouring rain. Today is Beth n Maureen [J-F] 's birthdays. They are astrol twins!! same day, yr - diff ascendants, one b in Austral n B, on LIsland, NY

LOVE - what else!

ao

Remember Jung said the longest journey we have to take is from the head to the heart, and he also said: "When the intellect serves the ego alone, it is the very devil!"

[Guest guest]

Dear Alice,

You wrote:

(snip)

Remember Jung said the longest journey we have to take is from

the head to the heart, and he also said: "When the intellect serves the

ego alone, it is the very devil!"

It must be the very devil most of the time then, yes? Most of us,

myself included, are after all only "ordinary egoists."

It also occurs to me that "intellect in the service of ego alone" might

be the very definition of the "Enlightenment" (capital E, referring

specifically to the political emancipation of the sciences beginning

500 years or so ago). So, things have been very much the very devil for

the past few centuries especially. That makes sense to me.

Best,

Dan

[Guest guest]

It's a really thought-provoking one!The language—guilt, redemption—sounds so Christian to me, but he is expressing something similar the bodhisattva philosophy, isn't he? That even the realized soul has work to do in the physical world? That he or she owes the world something? Yet the service the bodhisattva does is voluntary if I recall correctly, and Jung is attaching a moral judgment to not doing it. Or perhaps, Jung isn't talking about action or service at all, but rather of having high-minded values... no, he says "bringing forth values."  In any case, many thanks for the food for thought, and the prescient reminder.EveLet your life speak.      FoxHere is a significant quote! "Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral."                                                             C.G.Jung love ao

[Guest guest]

Please explain. I don't get it. Perhaps that is what Jesus did, but I still don't understand this at all.

Sara

Individuation

Here is a significant quote!

"Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral."

C.G.Jung

love

ao

[Guest guest]

I sense this can be understood through different portals or

metaphors. If you are using the Jesus metaphor, I am reminded of

the words he spoke to his mother when he denied his mother, and his

blood relations. I hear him to say that we leave our " specialness "

(the tribe we are born into, and the ego from which we define

ourself), in order to become a part of a bigger " special " (where our

ego is fed very little, though we have more compassion). This is the

Divine, where one is no longer special because of our ego, but

because we are no better, no less, than others, and thus we are

Special and all Divine.

Miriam

>

> Please explain. I don't get it. Perhaps that is what Jesus did,

but I still don't understand this at all.

>

> Sara

> Individuation

>

>

>

> Here is a significant quote!

>

> " Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence

from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves

behind him him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to

redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must

bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his

absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production

of values, final individuation is immoral. "

>

>

C.G.Jung

>

> love

>

> ao

>

[Guest guest]

And as far as i understand Jung there is no individuation without love.

U got that right!

love

ao

[Guest guest]

Dear Sara,

This is one of my favorite statements in Jung to contest the idea that people who try to individuate are narcissistic and only care about their "own" development.

One cannot individuate, Jung says unless one leaves the collective. But when one leaves, the space you occupied in the collective remains empty.

It is your duty, to mankind and yourself to encourage and help those left in the collective. This is the ransom Jung talks about....which we must pay.So...

" that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral."

In other words we must add our wisdom , that which we have learned through individuation back to the collective. We cannot keep it to ourselves and hug ourselves with it.

There is no individuation with out the ability to love, and love itself would demand care about the collective one has left.

As we become conscious, we must add that new bit of consciousness to the consciousness the collective is providing.

Individuation

Here is a significant quote!

"Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral."

C.G.Jung

love

ao

[Guest guest]

That post went off before I was finished, Sara, but on the other hand it will give you the answer you are looking for.

What Jesus did, I do not believe influenced Jung in his consideration of individuation. Christians, at least most believe Jesus "died for our sins" and it was acceptable because he was the Son and therefore sinless.

Nothing like that for the rest of us.The conversation isn't "redemption" nor being "saved"....in Jung's understanding of the quite human act of caring for those around one and having a debt to pay for leaving..those less aware than we are.

Love and justice are involved here and neither are only practiced by Jesus. We human's must do both as well. We are responsible for humanity as we are a part of it and cannot separate ourselves out...

Just as every evil committed by man or society adds to the evil in the world, so every conscious act done in love adds goodness, or compensates a small bit.

People misjudge Jung's work as they think it is part of "individualism" which can become very uncaring about other human beings. If we are so consumed by our ego that we want only to be the best we can be on our own, we defeat that very purpose...we do not live in an "on your own" planet.

We affect, we effect everyone around us. We must interact to live. Therefore it behooves us to care about the consciousness and the health of the larger collective, no? We may separate ourselves for our own growth, and we must, but then we must return and share that growth in consciousness with the collective. ( Not that that is always appreciated by it, but still we are bound by love and concern.

We are immoral if we deny our responsibility to mankind or our smaller collective. We are not given consciousness or wisdom just for our own use.And as far as i understand Jung there is no individuation without love.

Toni

Individuation

Here is a significant quote!

"Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral."

C.G.Jung

love

ao

[Guest guest]

I imagine the idea of redemption came long before Christ. It is used in Isaiah, and I imagine has been in use since man started thinking. Slaves were redeemed, for example.So were debts.

Don't know about "souls" having "work" to do in the physical world. Is love "work"? High minded values leave me cold...even Hitler owned some of these once. No one is all evil. And my soul cannot wander around without the rest of me attached...my humanness.

But high minded doesn't feed hungry children or give knowledge to those eager for it. High minded is a far cry from love and compassion...it doesn't need a heart at all. That is what is so wrong with many of our "do-gooders" all rational, no emotional , no human exchange.

Anyone who thinks he owes the universe nothing is so completely our of understanding, to my mind, I cannot even follow. To be a moral person, never mind a religious one ( impossible for a spiritual one ) one must admit one is one of many. In my estimation we owe gratitude and thanks to anyone who has nurtured us, as well as all of humanity past, present and to come, into whose already made world we come into. We are all One. Gratitude is the only moral value that will save many people. Thinking we have everything coming to us just because we were born leads to most of the evils in the world as it work itself out.In general we us humans so lack gratitude for Life and take it and everything else for granted.

MY understanding of the word "love" does not include "voluntary." We either love or do not. If we love, our hearts are not closed to some and open to others...it is an all or nothing game in the end. Sure very few understand it that way, but it is so. If we love, we will do whatever we are able to "work" mercifully in the world....even if it is done in silence and contemplation...as well as with visibly open arms and hearts.

The words " I will not serve" are the motto of Satan in mythology and theology. It concerns the Deity and it concerns all that is in the universe, in my opinion...especially fellow human beings...." I will not Serve "is that is easily my idea of SIN.

one "can bring forth values" by preaching them or teaching them. We will be successful at "bringing forth values" when we diminish our ego's and find the Self within. That happens through practice of love. And that will lead us to our responsibility to our fellow men with whom we share all That IS.

In my understanding, that is what Jung was saying...and he was talking to those who were already a little conscious and could contemplate leaving the collective...and do, with all the pain that follows separation.

Anyway, so I think. Just my way of saying why I love Jung.

Toni

Re: Individuation

It's a really thought-provoking one!

The language—guilt, redemption—sounds so Christian to me, but he is expressing something similar the bodhisattva philosophy, isn't he? That even the realized soul has work to do in the physical world? That he or she owes the world something? Yet the service the bodhisattva does is voluntary if I recall correctly, and Jung is attaching a moral judgment to not doing it. Or perhaps, Jung isn't talking about action or service at all, but rather of having high-minded values... no, he says "bringing forth values."

In any case, many thanks for the food for thought, and the prescient reminder.

Eve

Let your life speak. Fox

Here is a significant quote!

"Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral."

C.G.Jung

love

ao

[Guest guest]

Toni,

Yes. You explained it so well, and now I understand.

I don't know how "individuated" I am, but your thoughts remind me that wherever we are on this journey, it is not really a journey of "self improvement" but it is a journey of love and sharing that love.

Thank you so much.

Love,

Sara

Individuation

Here is a significant quote!

"Individuation cuts one off from personal conformity and hence from collectivity. That is the guilt which the individuant leaves behind him him for the world, that is the guilt he must endeavor to redeem. He must offer a ransom in place of himself, that is, he must bring forth values which are an equivalent substitute for his absence in the collective personal sphere. Without this production of values, final individuation is immoral."

C.G.Jung

love

ao

[Guest guest]

Eve says: >>The language—guilt, redemption—sounds so Christian to me, but he is expressing something similar the bodhisattva philosophy, isn't he? That even the realized soul has work to do in the physical world? That he or she owes the world something?<< --I'd be careful about describing the "work" that needs to be done in language relating to accounting, debt/payment, or effort as punishment rather than calling. As long as a person is thinking about paying a debt, s/he isn't connecting to others, only attempting to manipulate reality in order to reach a position of safety that doesn't exist in strategizing or "work". We've forgotten that building community is *fun*. Debts are naturally repayed as people are drawn into community by a network of relationships. Natural guilt happens on its own and leads to natural efforts to restore balance. Pushing people to do it is manipulation, and fails to generate

community. If the focus is on paying off a debt, people will pull away from each other, afraid of incurring possible debt or being manipulated with guilt.

Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

,

All I have is my own experience and insight, and I do know my shadow

is no less or more than any other I see around me. It is collective

guilt and shame we project and condemn others that forces some of

our hands to conform and not acknowledge the shadow and in turn,

know our Self. We live in a world that seems to negate shadow, but

in that negation, we negate human beings, - life force energy.

Miriam

---------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------

From: JUNG-FIRE [mailto:JUNG-FIRE ]

On Behalf Of Lockhart

Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 7:52 PM

To: JUNG-FIRE

Subject: Re: Individuation

Miriam says:

>>I sense this can be understood through different portals or

metaphors. If you are using the Jesus metaphor, I am reminded of the

words he spoke to his mother when he denied his mother, and his

blood relations. I hear him to say that we leave our " specialness "

(the tribe we are born into, and the ego from which we define

ourself), in order to become a part of a bigger " special " (where our

ego is fed very little, though we have more compassion).<<

--We seem to be living in a time when there is no security in

identities based on tribal affiliation, especially where being part

of the tribe means being unable to stand up to the tribe when it's

in the wrong. So everyone is choosing whether to side with the

tribe, right or wrong, with all the sacrifice that involves, or to

stand alone as a representative of the species, with a different set

of sacrifices. Perhaps it's necessary for everyone to feel half

right and half wrong, in order to integrate all the shadow we're

used to projecting on a " Wrong " class of people or an enemy. Two

forms of religion emerge, and you can see them in the Christian,

Islamic and Jewish worlds, among others. One says, " God is on our

side against THEM " (difficult to accept, with all sides afraid and

suffering) and the other says, " God is only as close to us as our

willingness to love those who fear and hate us " . Expect rifts to

develop between members of each faith, and for people who love their

enemy to be crucified, at least verbally.

[Guest guest]

Nice if we could completely know ourselves or our shadow or if we could just

drop off the whole subject by making it a collective shadow. I am afraid

Jung 's work doesn't make it that simple. Knowing ourselves involves not

just the tiny part of us that is conscious, but the unconscious as

well....and there is no way one can access the unconscious whenever one

wishes. We must wait for it to pop out so to speak.And then not immediately

repress it.

No way I can blame the collective for my unpleasant side, or even my

non-loving side. That is part of my character and I must work to bring as

much as I can to consciousness. Can't blame the collective. The collective

has a collective shadow but that does not make it any easier for me to deal

with my own.Most probably, like will discover like and be twice as strong.

Sure we project our unconscious shadow on others. It is when it is still

unconscious that we can refuse to see it. But there is sadly a conscious

side as well, and we can't slough that off on anyone else

consciously....that is the rub. Projection remains unconscious.

We do not " negate " human beings by trying to love instead of hate to help

instead of hinder. There is enough evil in the world, no chance of us

running out of the opposite of good anytime soon.

The world does not negate shadow, each of us is guilty of that. Gee, the

poor world...what is it made of that we can cheerfully blame it for our

shadow and then have it taken away?? Just people like us. " life force

energy " is neutral. We judge whether it helps or hinders according to our

values. How can there be a label saying " negative life force energy " ? Force

, energy is always neutral...we give it a moral value.

If there was ever real security within the tribe, it would not long since

have been noted by those conscious to see, that there is no guaranteed

security for anyone, anywhere but within themselves.or better, within the

Self

Physical, emotional, natural as in nature...all these we cannot really

control...but the tribe standing and suffering together gives us

companionship and allows love in.Standing together is preferable to

suffering alone for most human beings.

The world was not meant, i would imagine to be a safe hiding place. Most

human endeavors are caused by insecurity in some way, and the effort is to

make us more secure, emotionally, religiously and physically.

Perhaps instead of fooling ourselves into thinking we have control over our

own lives and space, it is time for mature people to realize that we

collectively or personally are not in control. Some will never admit that

and continue on willfully trying to force events and people into " each

individual's " vision of how life should be. If that won't convince the

crowds we either can say " it is G-d's will or we can use dictatorial

force....sometimes both at once.

I am delighted to find someone who thinks or knows that her shadow is no

better or worse than anyone else's.And I quote: " and I do know my shadow is

no less or more than any other I see around me " .

Shadow is Jung's term for the unacceptable part of us to ourselves, both

good and bad as we use the term.Since we refuse to see that which we do not

want to claim, we hold tight to our own shadow.. and may as well be somewhat

aware of the collective shadow.

My sense of values does not find life that sweet or forgiving. We are

better or worse mostly due to our consciousness which helps us to truly

understand the consequences of our actions...and please don't tell me all

people are alike in their consciousness and awareness.

And the day consciousness is claimed by all mankind is a distant dream.(

many of us delude ourselves, Jung found.)We base our self-judgment or self

esteem mostly by what we gather those around us see in us. Only a truly

conscious person would be able to know herself well enough not to care what

other think, but to know her self-worth.

There is plenty of collective guilt, true but there is more individual guilt

among people who are beginning to know their own motives...Shame is just one

way to deal with one's guilt and not a very good way....I would leave that

to the collective to pronounce...it does that very well.

Most theologians and many many philosophers would not equate the words of

Jesus with the good of " collectives " in the sense that Jung meant them. Yes,

we will all be One , when we actually can see the " plan " , not on this earth

I would guess anytime soon.

The " brotherhood of man " is not a collective in Jung's terms, it is a hoped

for future state of life on earth...or beyond.(It would be a profound

misreading, in my opinion, to equate Jung's idea of collective with Christ's

saying that He and the Father are one as we will be one in Him.

I would be hesitant to admit that my shadow knows my Self. I still see

separation, and since G-d becomes a part of Self, there is no room for

shadow....that which is unrecognized and unclaimed.

A person who is truly conscious would have diminished her ego to being

subservient to the Self. Many people do not even understand their own ego,

its strength or its weakness. We are a willful people, and letting our ego

become smaller and less powerful is not something many people adopt as their

goal. We still want to have our way.

This all is based on my understanding of the Jungian words used " collective "

" shadow " " consciousness " and even his use of the word " union " as well as my

understanding of the idea of individuation. If I am wrong, please someone

point out the places in Jung for me to read. I do want to get it as right as

i can for my own use. We seem to be using " shadow " as everything negative

and partially conscious and that is not what Jung seems to be saying...if I

am right.As far as integrating shadow...we cannot do that until we actually

own it..and most of us do not want to see it within.

Toni

I am curious, , who writes on behalf of Lockheart?

Re: Individuation

>

>

>

> Miriam says:

>

>>>I sense this can be understood through different portals or

> metaphors. If you are using the Jesus metaphor, I am reminded of the

> words he spoke to his mother when he denied his mother, and his

> blood relations. I hear him to say that we leave our " specialness "

> (the tribe we are born into, and the ego from which we define

> ourself), in order to become a part of a bigger " special " (where our

> ego is fed very little, though we have more compassion).<<

>

>

>

> --We seem to be living in a time when there is no security in

> identities based on tribal affiliation, especially where being part

> of the tribe means being unable to stand up to the tribe when it's

> in the wrong. So everyone is choosing whether to side with the

> tribe, right or wrong, with all the sacrifice that involves, or to

> stand alone as a representative of the species, with a different set

> of sacrifices. Perhaps it's necessary for everyone to feel half

> right and half wrong, in order to integrate all the shadow we're

> used to projecting on a " Wrong " class of people or an enemy. Two

> forms of religion emerge, and you can see them in the Christian,

> Islamic and Jewish worlds, among others. One says, " God is on our

> side against THEM " (difficult to accept, with all sides afraid and

> suffering) and the other says, " God is only as close to us as our

> willingness to love those who fear and hate us " . Expect rifts to

> develop between members of each faith, and for people who love their

> enemy to be crucified, at least verbally.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Toni,

You write: " I am delighted to find someone who thinks or knows that

her shadow is no

better or worse than anyone else's.And I quote: " and I do know my

shadow is

no less or more than any other I see around me " .

Shadow is Jung's term for the unacceptable part of us to ourselves,

both

good and bad as we use the term.Since we refuse to see that which we

do not

want to claim, we hold tight to our own shadow.. and may as well be

somewhat

aware of the collective shadow.

Nice if we could completely know ourselves or our shadow or if we

could just

drop off the whole subject by making it a collective shadow. "

Well, maybe it wouldn't be so nice if we completely knew ourselves

or " our shadow. " We wouldn't be human. Re-reading my post I see I

grossly oversimplified. You make strong points. I'm learning to

express myself more specifically and clearly have miles to go before

I sleep….

Dear Alice, I am inspired by the way you are able to pick up

anything mundane and turn it around with your words to show us the

Divine within. It helps keep my flame lit.

In good spirit,

Miriam

[Guest guest]

Toni says: >>If it were that simple most men of good will would long since have done it.<< --Never assume that simple truths are consistently put into practice! >>How long will it take the human race to acknowledge that good will alone will not change us or make the world any better?<< --When they learn that action is possible, and that words are meant to be guides for action, that philosophies are not an end in themselves but a means to an end. >>We keep trying again and again...why can't we just do it?<< --Because trying isn't the same as doing. Trying is the frustrating part BEFORE doing becomes effortless. >>We have been at it a long time with good intentions, which we repeat again and again.<< --Often, good

intentions aren't all that good when you look deeply into them... how often is good done out of a desire to look good, as opposed to being rooted in compassion? >>maybe we should finally be humble enough to admit our inability<< --Admit the inability of the ego. But there's more to everyone than their ego. The phrase, "I can do nothing good by myself" can be helpful or harmful, depending on whether the missing piece is projected outward onto some authority or deity, or found in the link between self and other. >>Then Sophia, another word for Holy Spirit might be inclined to help Wisdom is far from simple and until we realize our human nature is not strong enough or good enough for us to what we are admonished to do...we will continue to fail.<< --Much of what is labeled "human nature" is the distorting effect of cultural indoctrination. Human nature is like animal nature,

innocent and as perfect as anything else in nature. Culture is something else, and we routinely mistake one for the other. >>Christian spirituality or any other tradition is not just '"good advice" It is really in the nature of an order we may or not obey.<< --Depends on what you mean by "order". If you mean something like "the natural order", then yes. If you mean, "order" as in a command that must be obeyed, you're likely to miss the point and end up praying to a deity that won't respond because your prayers are rooted in a desire to be favored by God, rather than a desire to serve God. Serving God requires a willingness to belong to the tribe of mankind, rather than any sub-tribe with its own identity, symbols and rituals. Worshipping within the boundaries of the tribe (whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish or atheist) is a form of idolatry, although references to God tend to proliferate as a cover for the guilt of

shattering the whole. Mankind is suffering now because of that idolatry, and instead of shattering tribal identities to reclaim the original whole, we shatter God in order to reclaim the security of belonging to a tribe, polarized against other tribes. God cannot stop that, except through human beings. Prayer alone fails. >>Otherwise we are living under the law which we cannot obey.<< --We're living under a law we refuse to obey, because it would mean giving up secure boundaries. Who is willing to become "just a human being" and let go of tribal identities? Very few, and generally those who are rejected by their original tribe, not those who choose the path freely.>>As long as we are rationally persuaded to do "good" we will fall flat on our faces and our resolutions.<< --I'd say it depends on motive. Compassion produces action that makes

a difference. The desire to look good, to get rid of "bad karma", to be favored by God (or not punished by God), and attempting to push others to do good, all fail miserably. With all that "noise", genuine compassion has a hard time standing out. >>To establish our willingness to be led by the spirit rather than to chase down the path and fail once again.<< --That I agree with. Chasing anything doesn't work. >>I personally am very tired of exhortations to do ....whatever.<< --Everyone is. Everyone knows something must be done, but with all the pushing and prodding, it's hard to listen to the quiet voice in the heart, as opposed to the shouting of the crowd. >>Seeing the way of the avatars does not give us the ability to follow...<< --It does if one is not attached to anything else. Attachments

are difficult to drop, especially if one is taught that leaving the fold is betrayal. Members of all religions know on some level that there is a need for something higher than the splitting of humanity into faith groups. Many are afraid to take the first steps in that direction because it might result in scapegoating. Anyone who loves his or her enemy will likely be attacked, regardless of which religion they start from. >>We cannot obey the dictum to love everyone as we love ourselves, or isn't that very obvious to you all?<< --If it's seen as a command, then it can't be followed. It's completely possible to love everyone, but only if one is willing to see that his current tribal/religious/national/political boundaries are illusory and not spiritual in nature. We constantly mistake tribalism for spirit, because tribalism is a KIND of spirit. When it is divorced from the spirit of mankind as a

whole, it becomes toxic, a subtle form of idolatry masked by religious piety or patriotism. >>We will never do it...never as long as we are only human.Humility demand we admit we cannot do it alone first.<< --I'd say we cannot do it as long as we are less than FULLY human. What we define as "human" is only a tiny part of what humanity is capable of. Again, our tribal affiliations keep us isolated from the spirit of the whole, therefore less than human. To be "Jewish", "Muslim", "Christian" or "atheist" is to be less than fully human, whenever those categories are perceived as separate or opposed, rather than aspects of a multifaceted whole. As long as I am Jewish AND Muslim AND Christian AND atheist, I am fully human, but that requires breaking some entrenched beliefs about what identity is and means. Embrace paradox, and you'll find freedom, and liberate compassion. It's the only way to

genuine peace. The mind says, "But YOU'RE not Jewish/Muslim/Christian... only WE can be that!" And the fragmentation reiterates itself, and wholeness is broken again, resulting in continued suffering and illusory security in the pride of nations/tribes/religions. >>"The evil that I do that I would not and the good that I would,I am unable to do" That to me is where it is AT.<< --Consider how your identity has been defined, both before you were born (religion, nationality, family heritage) and how you've defined yourself in or against that background. Transcend all that (yes, it can be done) and you're free to have true compassion for all human beings, and a connection to nature that provides inspiration and energy to overcome all those tribal divisions in the world, the only way to follow the will of God without doing more damage than good.

The fish are biting.

Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.

[Guest guest]

Toni says: >>I imagine the idea of redemption came long before Christ. It is used in Isaiah, and I imagine has been in use since man started thinking. Slaves were redeemed, for example.So were debts.<< --True. Redemption is universal. What has always been difficult is empathy... Hebrew slaves knew very well that slavery was wrong, but they practiced it anyway once they had land of their own. Christians did the same thing. Even today, we treat other groups horribly, either openly or covertly, based on the belief that what is wrong to do to us is okay to do to others. Look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... each group has so little room in its consciousness for the suffering of the other, and those who do have compassion across lines are punished for showing it, accused of being traitors. >>Is love "work"?<< --Creating a space for love to exist may be work.

Especially if it involves overriding programmed beliefs from one's culture about who is or isn't deserving of love. >>High minded values leave me cold...even Hitler owned some of these once. No one is all evil.<< --I agree. >>That is what is so wrong with many of our "do-gooders" all rational, no emotional , no human exchange.<< --Agreed again... not just "do-gooders" but self-servers as well. I really don't like the word "do-gooder", though. It's often used to attack people whose motives are genuine, almost a kind of compassion-envy.>>Anyone who thinks he owes the universe nothing is so completely our of understanding, to my mind, I cannot even follow.<< --The word "owe" is based on an accounting metaphor that is inappropriate. Thinking you owe or don't owe the universe anything is missing

the point. You are connected to the universe, and when you hide that connection from yourself, you're "in debt" from the standpoint of the ego that thinks in accounting terms. Getting out of "debt" is not merely a matter of paying a fee... it involves transcending the accounting metaphor entirely and returning to the wholeness that cannot owe or be owed. >>To be a moral person, never mind a religious one ( impossible for a spiritual one ) one must admit one is one of many.<< --Religion is the restoration of what has been shattered over generations. In our case, true religion is the drive to overcome tribal divisions. Mohammad, Jesus and Moses would all be horrified at sectarian violence in Iraq, at the lack of compassion showed across lines in the Holy Land (one of the most "defiled" places on earth, if violence can defile holiness, and if refugee camps are an abomination to the spirit of justice)

and at the general indifference to suffering we've cultivated systematically over the decades. To restore that shattered whole is not easy, for anyone who fears being scapegoated by their own tribe for loving the "wrong" people. >>We are all One.<< --Agreed. Basing one's actions on that belief is another matter. >>Thinking we have everything coming to us just because we were born leads to most of the evils in the world as it work itself out.<< --Most people seem to feel something is owed them based on past suffering, not just having been born. Often, security is felt as being something one "deserves", when in reality, security is only gained by recognizing the security needs of others. You can see that dynamic play out horribly in the Middle East. >>The words " I will not serve" are the motto of Satan in

mythology and theology.<< --There's a mistaken notion of "serve" involved. Obedience is not a high value. Serving the "bigger picture" is a different kind of service. We forget, Satan is a metaphor for man's ego refusing to serve other human beings. When everyone is doing that, Satanic figures emerge, with godlike power and technology, to punish us collectively for the fatal flaw. If Satan's only crime were to disobey a command by a hierarchical deity, he wouldn't be wrong to do so. Disobedience to authority is a requirement of intelligence, not a flaw. Serving ego at the expense of others is a different thing. >>We will be successful at "bringing forth values" when we diminish our ego's and find the Self within.<< --Agreed.

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.