groups

This is the best Douglas Harding interpretation.

I don't comment much on those haikus but always read them, savor them and delight in them.
Thanks for your posts

Tell me again, what the index finger is point to? What is it absolutely? In addition, the three fingers pointing into the pale of hand, what are they pointing to? I shall be waiting for answers.

(1)Thanks, Raouf. Encouragement is always appreciated.

(2) “Rascal 2 to Rascal 1, Come In Please!”

If you can't "See It for Your Self," Roger, You not only missed The Point you missed Your Self!!! LOL

(I should have let “It go at That,” but couldn’t help myself – and never really could anyway! ROFLMAO)

A little more seriously (but not much), this isn't about being told "What You Are"; but, actually Looking and Seeing for Your Self (for You are the Only One that can).***

Neither is it about "head-games" (though one might argue "All-Existence is a Divine Head-Game One plays with One Self"; or, even more playfully (and assuming God has The Ultimate Sense of Humor, as I have no doubt God does), "God Playing with “Him-Her Self").

Nor is it about "dueling intellectual mirrors" (for however bright and shinning a particular intellect's self-reflective Light might become, it can and will never see, reflect or express Light's Totality and Ultimate Glory; unless, of course, One drops the intellect as a mental mirror and remembers It is the Totality of the Light Itself).

It's about Looking and Seeing Directly into What Is Perfectly Obvious; but is, amazingly, normally ignored in favor of the relative/carnal/egocentric state of Mind or Consciousness that One (from a local, particular self-contracted or bottoms-up perspective) mistakenly identifies with as itself (re: "me, myself or I as I think I am").

(Note: This is about as far as I would recommend that anyone who isn’t particularly interested in intellectual exercises or mind games to go.)

The alternate “third line characterizations,” which were not an attempt to defined the Absolute relatively, but rather to establish “common mental ground” with That Which Is Seen when One really Looks as suggested (without words and concepts); and, further, to illustrate that What Is Seen has a rather diverse and wide-ranging number of “Divine, Philosophical, Theological Designations” – characterizations that only point to this “Absolute State or Stateless State”(as the Absolute Source and Ground of Being or Consciousness that It Expresses In, As and Through) by likening said Absolute to “some-thing” relative mind, thought and consciousness can relate to relatively.

For intellectual computation purposes I would further suggest that “What It Is Like” definitionally (not Absolutely, for words can’t express or capture That) is “An Absolute Field of Infinite Potential to Be Any and All Things (Existential, Vibratory, Cognizant Energy that one might call Being, Consciousness or Aware-Presence that temporally adopts and forms particular patterns in and as Itself) in All Time and In All Space; an Eternal Field that is (necessarily) Absolutely Still, Silent, Empty or Void (by relative Standards). In this regard, and though some characterize It as “Space-Like or Pure Awareness” (unaware of Itself as Such in It’s Unmoved State), at this point at least I prefer (obviously) “Clear Aware Space” as a pointer that “feels almost tangibly real” with respect to the heartfelt resonance it occasions.

[*** Headless.org has many additional more rather ingenious “Harding Experiments” that enable just such “direct experiencing” (by No One, if they work) as a way of assisting the “average Joe” to Actually Looking See Who He Ultimately Is; and That based solely on Present Evidence – without any personal thought, memory, mind, conceptualization or association, etc.]

Rascal 2,

Thanks for your reply.

"If you can't "See It for Your Self," Roger, You not only missed The Point you missed Your Self!!! LOL"

---True I can't see my, Your Self, and am not trying to. Yes, I do try to miss, The Point, because this pointing can be misleading.

"Nor is it about "dueling intellectual mirrors" (for however bright and shinning a particular intellect's self-reflective Light might become, it can and will never see, reflect or express Light's Totality and Ultimate Glory; unless, of course, One drops the intellect as a mental mirror and remembers It is the Totality of the Light Itself)."

---This intellectual mirrors and other intellectual goings on occur here in this EON blog all the time. I'm not intellectual, however, why come to a blog and not desire to be intellectual? Read through the various EON GROUPS, much intellectual activities are occuring. No problem with the intellect, and Light's Totality and Ultimate Glory is a product of intellectual activity.

"For intellectual computation purposes I would further suggest that “What It Is Like” definitionally (not Absolutely, for words can’t express or capture That) is “An Absolute Field of Infinite Potential to Be Any and All Things (Existential, Vibratory, Cognizant Energy that one might call Being, Consciousness or Aware-Presence that temporally adopts and forms particular patterns in and as Itself) in All Time and In All Space; an Eternal Field that is (necessarily) Absolutely Still, Silent, Empty or Void (by relative Standards). In this regard, and though some characterize It as “Space-Like or Pure Awareness” (unaware of Itself as Such in It’s Unmoved State), at this point at least I prefer (obviously) “Clear Aware Space” as a pointer that “feels almost tangibly real” with respect to the heartfelt resonance it occasions."

---True,not Absolutely. However, words can express or capture or point to that which is of the Objective and Subjective. All the phrases and metaphorical descriptions, stated in the above paragraph can mislead the meek and sincere. This misleading isn't harmful.

"It's about Looking and Seeing Directly into What Is Perfectly Obvious; but is, amazingly, normally ignored in favor of the relative/carnal/egocentric state of Mind or Consciousness that One (from a local, particular self-contracted or bottoms-up perspective) mistakenly identifies with as itself (re: "me, myself or I as I think I am")."

---The "me, myself or I as I think I am" are part of the subject/objective realm. No big deal. One can embrace that which is not the subject/object realm and still engage in dualistic activities. Blogging is a dualistic activitity. The "Looking and Seeing Directly into What Is Perfectly Obvious" statement can be misleading and engage in this "pointing" activity that is not needed.

Again, thanks for the reply,
Rascal 1

RE: ---“True I can't see my, Your Self, and am not trying to. Yes, I do try to miss, The Point, because this pointing can be misleading. “

Suggest you go to www.headless.org and actually do a number of the experiments (with an open mind) instead of continuing the "intellectual avoidance tactics" (tactics which I, after 4000 plus books and 40 years of experience, have a certain mastery of on this End of Perception) that only serves to maintain "egocentric thought/carnal conception" at the Center of One's Conscious Attention and One Self in a Conceptual Cage (however exquisite) that can never be more than a pseudo or virtual reality.

I reiterate, Roger, this is not about "doing anything" [least of all trying to miss The Point (I'll read about how that might be rationalized later)]. It's about “Seeing Your Self as You Are” (in Spirit and Truth) and not as "you think you are" from a relative, self-referencing point of view.

No more, returning "intellectual serve" Here, Roger -- it's counter-productive and only encourages further Self-Ignorance on the part of all concerned. No more head games, intellectual flexing or Zen duals on this End; however much, the Apparent Body-Mind Organism (as a Complex Human Pattern of Vibrant Aware Space) Here absolutely loves getting lost in flow of consciousness writing (which, however insightful ,can never go beyond the “half-truths nature” of the relative words they are expressed with).

Rich,

Thanks for your reply. I'm guessing the Rascal 1 & 2 fun routine is coming to a temporary end. Hopefully not. In addition, thanks for your prompt reply.

"......continuing the "intellectual avoidance tactics" (tactics which I, after 4000 plus books and 40 years of experience, have a certain mastery of on this End of Perception) that only serves to maintain "egocentric thought/carnal conception" at the Center of One's Conscious Attention and One Self in a Conceptual Cage (however exquisite)....."

--The many books and years of experience statement can imply a separation between the intellectual and non-intellectual. Rich, i'm guessing you really regret writing that. A "certain mastery" needs further contemplation. No big deal, Rich, I still luv ya.

"I reiterate, Roger, this is not about "doing anything" [least of all trying to miss The Point (I'll read about how that might be rationalized later)]. It's about “Seeing Your Self as You Are” (in Spirit and Truth) and not as "you think you are" from a relative, self-referencing point of view."

---Well, this is a blog where duality exists, and reiterating is welcome and ok. In the subject/object realm, one can miss or capture the point, rationalize and not rationalize, see your self and not see, think and not think of what one is or not, and engage in a relative, self-referencing point of view. This is done all the time. No harm done.

"No more, returning "intellectual serve" Here, Roger -- it's counter-productive and only encourages further Self-Ignorance on the part of all concerned. No more head games, intellectual flexing or Zen duals on this End; however much, the Apparent Body-Mind Organism (as a Complex Human Pattern of Vibrant Aware Space) Here absolutely loves getting lost in flow of consciousness writing (which, however insightful ,can never go beyond the “half-truths nature” of the relative words they are expressed with)."

---I'm not cataloging myself into an intellectual category. However, what does "Zen duals" mean? Half-truth are just a type of truth. With that said, surely they are better than quarter(1/4) truths?

Rich, could you reference a website that explains, in detail, the true meaning of Silence? This could be a fascinating read. This Silence doesn't have to be Golden, it can be Copper or Platinum.

Thanks again for time spent in response.
Best wishes to you,
Roger(rascal 1)

" Light's Totality and Ultimate Glory is a product of intellectual activity. " Rascal 1 aka Roger

Can you point me to where I can find more information about this, please?

Sorry, I can’t hold my Peace in the face of such misinformation.

(1) RE: "Light's Totality and Ultimate Glory is a product of intellectual activity."

This is patently untrue (except, perhaps, to the intellect and/or ego). The intellect does not create Light (least of all the Totality of Light), it reflects It.

How arrogantly humanistic to even suggest that a mechanism of self-reflection actually originates the Light it reflects -- talk about playing God (which is, of course, the ego's game).

I do hope you’re just "funning/pimping/yanking my chain" on this one, Roger.

(2) RE: ...the true meaning of Silence?

True, Real or Absolute Silence is a “Non-Relative State” that can only be defined in terms of what it is not (re: relatively speaking, silence is the "absence of the vibrations" that need to impact an eardrum that the human mind subsequently interprets as sound; Absolutely speaking True Silence is a Total Absolute Absence of vibration).

As such, True Silence (and thus the true meaning of Silence) is equivalent to Absolute Zero [Zero Vibration, Friction and, thus, Heat (re: Heat Death)].

And you can't get There from Here (at least not with a relative state of mind and/or the self-reflective light of the intellect). You can, however, Be the Pure, Still, Silent Aware Space (that is, by definition, Absolute, Infinite, Eternal and implicitly Absolutely Still and Silent) You Always Already Are, if you die to yourself as the relative/carnal state of mind egocentric thought fabricates.

Intriguing stuff Rich; very metaphysical, and I concur with most, but zero is still a form and a “non-relative state” does not include form. So in my opinion silence goes beyond the equivalent of absolute zero. The Romans had no symbol for zero because they believed why have symbols for something that represents nothing. Once we put something in context, even to say that it is nothing, we have made it relative to something. No it is not my intent to play intellectual games.

In my perception relative-ness is illusionary as the oneness of being exists even in seemingly separate entities. I agree that the intellect does not create light rather it reflects it, and it is these reflections that create relationships or the appearance of relative-ness.

Looking at the beginning of the whirlings, often symbolized by Sufi whirling dervishes, sound is the first matter and it precedes light; sound comes out of silence, but if silence is absolute zero then beyond silence is the non-quantifiable unknowable; well it does seem with this statement I have contradicted myself. From this perspective silence just might be perceived as absolute zero! While silence does not have form, and may be the absence of vibration, it does have a presence.

“And you can't get There from Here (at least not with a relative state of mind and/or the self-reflective light of the intellect). You can, however, Be the Pure, Still, Silent Aware Space (that is, by definition, Absolute, Infinite, Eternal and implicitly Absolutely Still and Silent) You Always Already Are, if you die to yourself as the relative/carnal state of mind egocentric thought fabricates. “

Amen to that!

Thank you for your tireless sharing of wonderful insights.

Then again silence might be the primordial vibration.