The futility of my trying. Chasing this awakening. Consuming words like a glutton. Would I be just as close if I didn’t feel like I was so close? Would I be just as close had I never heard of any of it? Closer? And while we’re at it, what does “close” mean? (Please do consider any/all of my questions as rhetorical)
Thanks, Carl, for adding my wordiness to the banquet. I know the gluttony of which you speak.
Abhishiktananda, a Christian mystic who practiced in India, said (I paraphrase) that Logos - language, logic, reason and order et cetera - can get one to the entrance to the Cave of the Heart, but are of no use upon entry.
That's just another analogy, of course, but it CAN be helpful. Where are - in experience - the limits of logos? What works just fine without logos - in your body, in your community, and in the world?
And this is a lovely question:
"Would I be just as close had I never heard of any of it?"
A thousand times this inquiry!! If the whole spiritual paradigm - the whole God/One/Etc - did not exist, what would be missing right now? And, if something IS missing, and no spiritual/religious/philosophical language exists to describe it, how will you make clear to me WHAT is missing?
A lot began to gently shift for me when I began to see those kinds of questions as "fun" rather than imperative, and thus began to engage with them less from a discursive and opportunistic posture and more from a "sure, let's play!"
I really enjoy reading your expositions on ACIM. I was fortunate to attend several workshops with Tara Singh (Foundation for Life Action) in the 1990s, and have several of his books on the topic. You write in a manner reminiscent of how he spoke and what his talks pointed towards. I recall his term for the 'Vertical' words which point to that which is beyond words - and inhabiting that space daily through practice. Thank you for reinforcing it so well!
What a gift to have studied with Tara Singh! His work has been so helpful to me over the years. Thank you for the kind words, Johan, and for reading and sharing. I am very grateful 🙏🙏
For a very long time, I didn't think of acim as either dualistic or non-dualistic, because I didn't know about non-dualism. Then I began to read and listen to Rupert Spira who is all about non-dualism and then when I went back to acim to see what I'd think of it after such a big dose of Spira, I was startled to think, "Oh! ACIM was non-dualistic all along and I didn't know it."
But now, after reading your essay, I'm thinking, as I have been lately, "Well, it could be that Jesus is practicing what Spira calls "compassionate concessions," which is basically a way of talking that doesn't frighten the horses, so to speak. Because. . .when we first encounter acim we are so sunk in the illusion of dualism that the Voice for God can only talk our language and have any hope that we'll listen or understand. Now I think it's compassionately using our dualistic perceptions to *point" us toward the cool and bracing air of non-dualism/oneness. I want to say it worked with me, but I did have to take a year-long detour into non-dualism to get here to this newsletter. Timing is all, until timing is nothing, eh?
( "Consuming words like a glutton," as Carl Haas says in his comment.)
Yes, talking in a way that doesn't frighten the horses. Which, of course, is less about the CONTENT of what is said and more about HOW it is being said. Which further makes clear that the problem is not so much a problem of understanding - e.g., fixable in the sense of studying Spira or the Course or whatever, getting more information or the right information - then it is a problem of function, of mechanics.
Jim reminded me on Sunday of David Bohm and I went back and reread his little essay "The Observer and the Observed." It was so helpful to me at a critical juncture in my study, making clear in a tangible way how the observer and the observed are one, even as thought (i.e., ego) INSISTS they are separate. I saw clearly what ACIM was getting at in its conservative and convoluted way.
(Bohm's helpfulness has been second only to Tara Singh's, with whom he was at least distantly conceptually related, through their mutual association with Krishnamurti)
As I alluded to in my reply to Carl, a lot of spiritual languaging can get in the way of what it is actually a not-very-complicated problem, for which analogies other than religio-spiritual - may be better-suited at undoing, e.g., observer/observed, map/territory and so forth. Gluttony, sloth, pride et cetera are no joke.
Thank you for this helpful reply, Sean. Now I will look up the Bohm essay. I love the links between him, Singh and Krishnamurti. (I want to nudge Jung in there, for my own pleasure of thinking of them all at dinner together. I've read that Jung had Einstein over for dinner regularly. Wow.)
Sean, thank you for the reminder to forgive the self we think we are.
Jim O'Brien
🙏🙏
The futility of my trying. Chasing this awakening. Consuming words like a glutton. Would I be just as close if I didn’t feel like I was so close? Would I be just as close had I never heard of any of it? Closer? And while we’re at it, what does “close” mean? (Please do consider any/all of my questions as rhetorical)
Thanks, Carl, for adding my wordiness to the banquet. I know the gluttony of which you speak.
Abhishiktananda, a Christian mystic who practiced in India, said (I paraphrase) that Logos - language, logic, reason and order et cetera - can get one to the entrance to the Cave of the Heart, but are of no use upon entry.
That's just another analogy, of course, but it CAN be helpful. Where are - in experience - the limits of logos? What works just fine without logos - in your body, in your community, and in the world?
And this is a lovely question:
"Would I be just as close had I never heard of any of it?"
A thousand times this inquiry!! If the whole spiritual paradigm - the whole God/One/Etc - did not exist, what would be missing right now? And, if something IS missing, and no spiritual/religious/philosophical language exists to describe it, how will you make clear to me WHAT is missing?
A lot began to gently shift for me when I began to see those kinds of questions as "fun" rather than imperative, and thus began to engage with them less from a discursive and opportunistic posture and more from a "sure, let's play!"
Thank you for the reminder 🙏🙏
Love,
Sean
I really enjoy reading your expositions on ACIM. I was fortunate to attend several workshops with Tara Singh (Foundation for Life Action) in the 1990s, and have several of his books on the topic. You write in a manner reminiscent of how he spoke and what his talks pointed towards. I recall his term for the 'Vertical' words which point to that which is beyond words - and inhabiting that space daily through practice. Thank you for reinforcing it so well!
What a gift to have studied with Tara Singh! His work has been so helpful to me over the years. Thank you for the kind words, Johan, and for reading and sharing. I am very grateful 🙏🙏
Love,
Sean
I am reminded of "Keep it simple." "God is."
Always a good reminder 🙏🙏 Thank you, Anne.
Love,
Sean
Thank you....
You're welcome, Glenda - thank you for being here 🙏🙏
~ Sean
🤨
🙏🙏
For a very long time, I didn't think of acim as either dualistic or non-dualistic, because I didn't know about non-dualism. Then I began to read and listen to Rupert Spira who is all about non-dualism and then when I went back to acim to see what I'd think of it after such a big dose of Spira, I was startled to think, "Oh! ACIM was non-dualistic all along and I didn't know it."
But now, after reading your essay, I'm thinking, as I have been lately, "Well, it could be that Jesus is practicing what Spira calls "compassionate concessions," which is basically a way of talking that doesn't frighten the horses, so to speak. Because. . .when we first encounter acim we are so sunk in the illusion of dualism that the Voice for God can only talk our language and have any hope that we'll listen or understand. Now I think it's compassionately using our dualistic perceptions to *point" us toward the cool and bracing air of non-dualism/oneness. I want to say it worked with me, but I did have to take a year-long detour into non-dualism to get here to this newsletter. Timing is all, until timing is nothing, eh?
( "Consuming words like a glutton," as Carl Haas says in his comment.)
Yes, talking in a way that doesn't frighten the horses. Which, of course, is less about the CONTENT of what is said and more about HOW it is being said. Which further makes clear that the problem is not so much a problem of understanding - e.g., fixable in the sense of studying Spira or the Course or whatever, getting more information or the right information - then it is a problem of function, of mechanics.
Jim reminded me on Sunday of David Bohm and I went back and reread his little essay "The Observer and the Observed." It was so helpful to me at a critical juncture in my study, making clear in a tangible way how the observer and the observed are one, even as thought (i.e., ego) INSISTS they are separate. I saw clearly what ACIM was getting at in its conservative and convoluted way.
(Bohm's helpfulness has been second only to Tara Singh's, with whom he was at least distantly conceptually related, through their mutual association with Krishnamurti)
As I alluded to in my reply to Carl, a lot of spiritual languaging can get in the way of what it is actually a not-very-complicated problem, for which analogies other than religio-spiritual - may be better-suited at undoing, e.g., observer/observed, map/territory and so forth. Gluttony, sloth, pride et cetera are no joke.
Thank you always Nancy 🙏🙏
Love,
Sean
Thank you for this helpful reply, Sean. Now I will look up the Bohm essay. I love the links between him, Singh and Krishnamurti. (I want to nudge Jung in there, for my own pleasure of thinking of them all at dinner together. I've read that Jung had Einstein over for dinner regularly. Wow.)
To be a fly on that wall!!