Gangaji versus Sanaya Roman

User avatar
Clare
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: Limousin, France
Contact:

Post by Clare » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:03 pm

Oooh, a post like that, Dave, is like honey to a bee to a numerologist.

Here I am doing a compatibility chart for somebody, getting stuck, procrastinating, and there you go and make me go in search of Lance's chart. ( you MADE me. You did!)

HOLY (*^(*&(*&!! COW!!

He was actually named at birth Lance Edward Gunderson. How he chose Armstrong, I don't know. technically it should be Legstrong, because he can stomp up those mountains like a goat on speed. I know, eyes seen 'im.

But his name - Lance Edward Gunderson, and his birthdate give him a chart that I looked at and literally went dizzy.

This man is more than a survivor, he is going to save a hell of a lot of people. Listen to him, this guy has something. The name chart is extraordinary enough, but his birth chart.... :shock: :shock: :!: :idea: Every single one of his life challenges is a 0 challenge. A zero challenge is rare; happens usually only once in maybe every ten people or so. He has four zero challenges all to himself, all though his life. Zero challenge is the inner crossroads. It is the place of nothing and everything where anything is possible. It's can be life or death, or it can be a life extraordinary - beyond life.

if that isn't enougn, every single one of his pinnacles is nine. I have never seen a chart like this - on one side nine nine nine - the number of the last incarnation, the number of the benefactor, and the teacher who leads by example, the artist of life - ultimate co-creator. And on the other, zero zero zero zero. Wow.

Okay, diversion over. Just had to tell you. Excuse my enthusiasm.

His name is more apt than we could ever know. but strangely he changed it. Doesn't matter, it still sticks :)

Now that guy KNOWS The Big T! By gosh he IS it! :)

User avatar
heidi
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2703
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:37 am
Location: 42nd parallel, Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Post by heidi » Fri Jan 27, 2006 3:27 pm

Could the Big T be that all the teachings telling us to release all and give up all agenda are just distracting from the fact that we do have the potential to control absolutely everything that happens - Good or bad.
The potential we have isn't to control everything that happens - it's the power to control our relationship to outcomes, seeing no good or bad, just accepting what is and working with it. :)
Heidi
http://www.heidimayo.com
wonderment on the third wave

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:43 pm

heidi wrote: Acceptance, such as knowing that everything is as it should be, allows one to have an agenda and still be accepting of whatever the outcome is.
Everything is as it should be. We try to paint a beautiful painting, but if it doesn't work out, we let it go, we accept the painting as it is. The imperfect painting is as it should be. We are having faith that Whoever is in charge knows what they are doing.

Everything is as it should be. We try to explore our spiritual side, but if it doesn't work out, we let it go, we accept ourselves as we are. The imperfect person is as they should be. We are having faith that Whoever is in charge knows what they are doing.

If people are as they should be, if we have faith that Whoever is in charge knows what they are doing, then maybe we've opened a door to releasing some agendas.

What interests me is that I'm guessing that Heidi accepts her painting before she paints it.

This acceptance frees Heidi's work from the distracting influence of a bunch of needs. This acceptance frees her from the need of a pile of books on how to paint correctly. She's not painting her needs, and she's not painting someone else's painting either. She's free to paint with creative abandon, open to channeling Whoever and Whatever appears in the now.

Can we accept ourselves now, before we begin our spiritual journey?

User avatar
spatialbean
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post by spatialbean » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:02 am

The potential we have isn't to control everything that happens - it's the power to control our relationship to outcomes, seeing no good or bad, just accepting what is and working with it.
This was the practice that relieved me of so much pain and suffering. That is our way out of incurring more Karma. And it's so simple. So simple you will think you have missed something, but if you practice it, life opens up for you like you could never imagine.

Thanks Heidi :D

Love,
Claudia

User avatar
heidi
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2703
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:37 am
Location: 42nd parallel, Massachusetts, USA
Contact:

Post by heidi » Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:33 am

Phil said:
I'm stuck on reconciling "agenda" and "no expectation of outcome".
Maybe we should change the word from agenda to intention?

Must an agenda have an outcome? Does the word agenda have too much manipulation attached to it? A lot has to do with what kind of a charge certain words have for you.

How about intention and acceptance?
Heidi
http://www.heidimayo.com
wonderment on the third wave

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:53 am

heidi wrote: A lot has to do with what kind of a charge certain words have for you.
Good point Heidi, and skillful concise teaching. The word "agenda" typically does come with baggage, and in some cases the charge would be the problem for me, but not so much here.

What interests me about Clare's question is that I observe in myself how I bring agenda or intention to my favorite now venue, nature. I see how the game plan I bring to nature interferes with connecting to what is.

I have a need for beauty and serenity. I bring that need in to nature, and I find what I'm looking for. I see beauty and serenity, I see my needs, not what is.

I have another need to understand the big picture. So I develop some theories such as "nature is oneness" etc. While in nature I observe myself focusing on that which supports my theories. I see my theories, again my needs, not what is.

Please allow me to insert a disclaimer here that when I'm in the woods this process is much less mental, even nomind sometimes, but the reasons I entered the woods still function as a filter, limiting me to some fragment of what is now.

So when Clare raised the question of "releasing all agenda" it rang a bell here.

If I have a theory that "no expectation of outcome" will lead to peace, I still have an expectation of an outcome, eh? A tricky business.

Thanks for your thoughts, still listening.

User avatar
spatialbean
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Post by spatialbean » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:40 am

I have a need for beauty and serenity. I bring that need in to nature, and I find what I'm looking for. I see beauty and serenity, I see my needs, not what is.
I have another need to understand the big picture. So I develop some theories such as "nature is oneness" etc. While in nature I observe myself focusing on that which supports my theories. I see my theories, again my needs, not what is.
Hi Phil,

So I understand, please explain to me what nature would look like if you had no agenda? Would you see something that was not beautiful and serene? What would those things be like?
If I have a theory that "no expectation of outcome" will lead to peace, I still have an expectation of an outcome, eh? A tricky business.
No, there is no expectation of outcome because you are not dealing with theory in this equation. Plus, having no expectation doesn't lead to peace, it is peace already.

Love,
Claudia

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sat Jan 28, 2006 5:52 pm

Hi Claudibean,
spatialbean wrote:So I understand, please explain to me what nature would look like if you had no agenda?


Good question. I'm not qualified to answer really, beyond an observation that my needs, goals, theories etc serve as a filter upon my view. That part is clear enough, so I know I'm not seeing nature in it's wholistic fullness.

I'm grabbing one polarity and embracing it, and pushing the other polarity away. Lots of stuff in the middle likely getting lost in the process.

It's just like when I don't really hear your post, because I'm too busy serving my need to write my own post. I've brought my needs and theories to the conversation, and so I don't fully see you. I accept the part of you I see, but I don't see all of you, and I can't accept that which I have chosen not to see.

Precence is the solution? I will bring my needs and theories to that as well. Who is choosing to be present? The same person walking in nature, or chatting with you.

I'm observing that I'm currently using the "positive manipulation of energy" system.

Life is short, I want to be happy, so when in nature, or some other now, I pick out the happy stuff, and focus on that. A pretty sensible and practical system, I'm not arguing against it at all. Just observing the price tag, which appears to be, a less intimate and accurate connection with what is.

Sorry, I'm not ignoring your question, I just don't have an answer in any detail. I don't know what nature looks like minus an agenda.
spatialbean wrote:No, there is no expectation of outcome because you are not dealing with theory in this equation.
Truthfully, I'm not clear if I should chew on this or not. Please just tell me if anyone would prefer I just leave it be in public.

I'm just reporting an observation from one limited perspective that this entire subject we are discussing seems, to JustPhil, incurably saturated in expectations of outcome, and I don't know how to explore our topics honestly without including that part of the picture.
spatialbean wrote:This was the practice that relieved me of so much pain and suffering. That is our way out of incurring more Karma. And it's so simple. So simple you will think you have missed something, but if you practice it, life opens up for you like you could never imagine.
A beautifully concise and heartfelt expression, that will now create wonderful expectations of outcome in hundreds, maybe thousands of readers.

Whether this is helpful or not seems to depend on whether our priority is "releasing all agenda" or a "positive manipulation of energy."

In the first case, the expectations may obscure our view. When we go to now, we may see only what Claudia told us to expect.

In the 2nd case, the expectation may provide us with the guidance and energy we need to alter one "what is" in to another "what is".

Not arguing for or against either option, don't know myself, just trying to observe what's happening as clearly as possible.

be-lank
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:50 pm

Post by be-lank » Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:08 pm

How is any of this is a problem? Agendas- no-agendas, agendas within no agendas. What does this matter? The mind- the great divider- has a need to divide- to either/or it. But it can be both, and it can be no problem. Our egos and minds are constantly doing things. That’s fine. But what does that have to do with watching the waves on the water, or the way the wind blows the leaves of trees?

This importance and value put on these seemingly contradictory concepts, loses Love's attention. It’s fine to discuss this, as long we know there are no real answers on the level of discussion. As long as we know that this is just for fun. The realization that two or more things can exist at the same time in the same space, is very freeing.

And it’s the space that allows one to see this. One can have both agendas and no agendas in the same moment. Just like this world- being both form and formless in One.

Digging for gold where there is no gold is fine. But if one knew there was no gold, I don’t suppose they would be digging for it there.

Sometimes we get hung up on a thought. And sometimes we like it.
But if one wants the answer, one can look at the thought, allow it to be, and see the one who is looking as the answer to all questions that have ever been. We are the looking.

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:30 pm

be-lank wrote:The mind- the great divider- has a need to divide- to either/or it.
Well said. Welcome to our either/or it party! You do the dance as well or better than any of us. The phildog has met his match at this game, and is appropriately humbled.

I accept your post as a quite articulate and concise expression of a point of view. A theory, a concept, an analysis, a perspective, an explanation.

I accept my post as a less graceful and regrettably wordier (Quack, quack, quack! ) expression of another point of view. A theory, a concept, an analysis, a perspective, an explanation.

You wrote your post from the same place I wrote mine. We both have various theories of what the big picture is all about. None of our theories are now, they are theories about now. Neither of us is quite ready to fully accept that. Each of us has a healthy ego, and wants to be viewed as the one who is right, most insightful, etc etc.

Neither of us has _any clue_ of when to quit, :-) and thus together we are becoming Lucy and Desi, the comic clowns in the circus of this forum. And thus each of us is earning the ego observations we need.

The Power Of Noise! Stand in awe...

Wake up readers! Lisa and I will be billing you for this entertainment soon. Enjoy the free ride while it lasts! :-)
It’s fine to discuss this, as long we know there are no real answers on the level of discussion. As long as we know that this is just for fun.
I agree with you Lisa. I accept my words, theories, perspectives, explanations as limited, incapable of grasping "the truth". Forum posting is mostly about fun, no doubt. Your posts too my dear.... ;-)

And I accept you Lisa. I accept your imperfection, your noise, your ego, your need to know what it's all about, your need to possess "the right answer" that you can share with others.

I have to accept you, because you're just like me.

If I don't accept you as you are, I'm screwed! :-)

You and I are really one and the same, and we've created the illusion we're separate.

Ironic, eh!?

User avatar
Clare
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:20 pm
Location: Limousin, France
Contact:

Post by Clare » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:31 pm

Wow, this is bringing up all kinds of stuff, huh?

I have no idea if I do this thing Eckhart and some of the members who celebrate their enlightenment on here do, but Iam truly always aware of two Clares - I just don't disregard 'the other one' as just ego. But one of them loves the questions and loves to 'dance', if you will, and the other is observing it all. Difference with me is the one observing it all is not observing what is going on above it, it is observing undercurrents. I don't think that is so much my Higher self as my intuitive self. One of me loves words and language and the other ignores words and instead reads energy, like braille.

The undercurrent of love is so apparent, just to say. But I smell pain bodies afoot :twisted: If that is the case with me. The love and appreciation and admiration of each of you is great. I really really appreciate each and every one of you. I think you are ALL right! :)

Regarding changing the name, though. I had thought of the word intention, rather than agenda. But I left it as agenda because I feel it's important to deal with words we have negative connotations for. I'd say a rose is a rose, and a thorn is also a thorn.

I agree with Phil, though, that we can't get away from agenda. And we can call it pretty names, or say koan-like things such as, "But droppinug all agenda is not an agenda because there is no place for agenda within no agenda". But again, I just feel we are making ourselves comfortable.

Huna states that our inherent instinct is to retreat from pain and go towards pleasure. Wehter that means just staying in a comfort zone of ego and ignorance, or putting ourselves through anything from a dark night of the soul, through to adopting a concept of no mind, to agreeing to be crucified on the promise of less pain, more bliss, we are still doing that.

I feel the only thing that distinguishes is what motivates our agendas. We are all One, but we are also on different levels of energy within that One (and, I hasten to add, I feel we ALL have higher and lower levels, it's just which we choose to operate in most). I remember Heidi saying something like this to me once. I think it applies to our spiritual path as much as it applies to mentality.

LOVE!
Clare :)

be-lank
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:50 pm

Post by be-lank » Sat Jan 28, 2006 8:39 pm

Can you hear that?
I’m packing my bags. Florida here I come. (gator-shhmater)

Thank-you for your post, Phil.

The core issue seems to be that you do not believe in an “Absolute Truth.” While I am actually realizing that which is called “absolute truth.” The Source of all Life. Life. Being. Presence. God. The formless, timeless, One Life.

For you, this would be another perspective.

But do you really know that to be all it is?

When you are out in nature, and maybe sitting down, and the mind is quiet, have you ever “gone into the body”? When you go into the body, your attention goes there, and away from the mind. There is an aliveness that is felt in the body, an inner energy field, which is Being and space. Inner space. It’s wonderful, but the mind does not want to go there. If you would go into the body for a while, you could see what I am speaking of. It’s all about Love.

Resistance is of the mind. If there is resistance to this, it’s just the mind. We are so much greater than our minds. And the power within us is the power of the universe. The mind has only a tad of power- which is not its own. Consciousness is who we are. And consciousness wants to realize Itself and it does so through the human form. But the mind needs to be still.

In nature, would you be still, very still, just be and see?

This is how the world is healed and transformed. The world is within you. You don’t have to believe it, but can you practice “being still” for a while? This would be the true test. For how can you keep your position if “being still” is not accessible to you? This is when the mind is empty, or if thoughts come you are not giving them attention but just allowing them to be. (This is when you are the Watcher, the Witness, The Observer of thought and not thought itself.)

be still
go beneath the mind
go into the body
feel the body from within
completely accept this moment
surrender to the now

A practice takes some practice. But with your awareness, which is strong, it should not take long before you Feel It. It comes through feeling. Very subtle at first. Just noticing, being alert, allowing nothing to be, and paying attention to it. A ten minute practice once a day would be fine.

These words are part of the dance. But the portals and being still,
are the Dance!

“You and I are really one and the same, and we've created the illusion we're separate.”

Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful.

I only want God, I don’t have to quit, I am always flat on the ground, surrendering or dying to surrender! I am a puppet in the Master’s hand, both terribly in love and screaming about puppet rights. I’m nothing.

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:41 pm

Clare wrote:One of me loves words and language and the other ignores words and instead reads energy, like braille.
Yes, and I sense you don't spend a lot of time ranking your various input points. You have arms, legs, eyes, ears, knees and elbows, intellect and intuition, silence and noise. All different, all valuble parts of the whole package. That's what I hear from here, but I could be hearing my needs though! :-)
Clare wrote:I agree with Phil, though, that we can't get away from agenda.
I don't know that we can't get away from needs and theories etc. Maybe we can, or not, I don't know. It seems worth exploring, thanks for bringing it up.

But if we do have agendas, I'm guessing they will inevitably be the filter through which we see now. I'm clearer on that part.
Clare wrote:And we can call it pretty names, or say koan-like things such as, "But droppinug all agenda is not an agenda because there is no place for agenda within no agenda".
You make me laugh Clare. :-)

phil
Posts: 649
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Gainesville Florida USA
Contact:

Post by phil » Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:46 pm

be-lank wrote:The core issue seems to be that you do not believe in an “Absolute Truth.”
Sorta, almost. I don't believe you and I are in a position to know whether there is Absolute Truth, or not, or what it is, or isn't etc. And that too is just a perspective.

We know our own experience. Great authority to that point.

You know what now feels like FOR YOU. If you really believe in now, and are really disinterested in mindstuff, why not just leave it at that? You feel your now. Period.

Why label your experience Absolute Truth, add a bunch of explanations of what it all means, rank your explanations above somebody else's, and so on?

Or, if you want stay with all the mindstuff, A-OK no problem at all. Mindstuff is cool too. So you might assign the same mindstuff label to your explanations that you'd assign to anybody else's so we can all do the mindstuff dance TOGETHER, and have a lot fun with it.

I just don't follow when you proceed from your personal experience and theories and expand them with great certainty in to a global explanation that includes billions of people you've never met, and thus know very little about.

Well, I do follow actually, cause I'm pretty good at that mistake myself.

Here we are again. What part of you am I seeing? That part which mirrors me. I am struggling to escape this arrogance myself so I see it in you. You are struggling to reach silence, so you lecture me about silence, as if I was you. Talking to ourselves. Agendas, leading to a semi-blind experience of now.

A little Tolle story. It takes one second to reach the moon at the speed of light. The nearest galaxy is 2.2 million light years away. There are millions, maybe billions of galaxies. There could easily be hundreds of thousands of unimaginably different intelligent life forms out there, each 100 million years more evolved than us.

And two human beings named Phil and Lisa, who are two steps up from a monkey eating a banana while scratching it's ass, have realized That which is behind it all.

OK, could be, that's one possibility. I bet 2 cents that is how it works!

Quack!

Lisa, I respect your strength and am assuming we can arm wrestle without reassuring each other between each match. I'm really not trying to pick on you, and I know you aren't either. We're just playing loud music together, and each of your solos inspires me to one of my own.

Cool?

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

Fixing up a few amazing facts.

The following site reports these details:
http://www.hartrao.ac.za/other/howfar/howfar.html

How far away is the nearest galaxy? The newly discovered dwarf galaxy Sagittarius, only 60,000 light years away, is spiralling into the Milky Way. The nearest large spiral galaxy like the Milky Way is the Andromeda galaxy, about 2.7 million light years away.

How many galaxies are there in the visible universe? Over 2 million have been counted, but there could be about 100,000 million.

How big is the visible universe? About 15,000 million light years.

How far does light travel in one second?? 300,000 kilometers, which equals seven times around the Earth.

Image
Last edited by phil on Sun Jan 29, 2006 2:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

DavidK
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:29 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by DavidK » Sat Jan 28, 2006 11:08 pm

Clare wrote:Oooh, a post like that, Dave, is like honey to a bee to a numerologist.
LOL! :D

I'm glad that my post was the instigation for fun numerological romp for you. I have a feeling it doesn't take much though. :wink:
Your post was a delight to read and quite fascinating.
Now I'm beginning to wonder if I should see about hiring you to look into my name. Do I dare...? :shock:

-Dave

Post Reply