Page 6 of 6

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 4:58 am
by Sighclone
Why certainly, snowheight, that is true. But we know, and I know you know that our true nature is infinite.

Andy

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 6:33 pm
by snowheight
Sighclone wrote:
snowheight wrote: one is limited in what one can BE by one's nature.
Why certainly, snowheight, that is true. But we know, and I know you know that our true nature is infinite.
Andy


There is no denying what you say Andy but I get the feeling that here we asymptotically approach that borderland where words start to turn into paradoxes.

A cow will never lay eggs but a chicken would never have the thought to nurse calves ... can we make a parallel abstract observation of human beings which is similar?

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:02 pm
by Sighclone
There is no denying what you say Andy but I get the feeling that here we asymptotically approach that borderland where words start to turn into paradoxes.


How about the word "I" for starters...or "self" or a finger pointing toward itself...there is something recursive about all this nondual speak...it folds back on itself, but never gets there...asymptotically...

Words, by their nature are conceptual and are citizens of maya. None of them will fully describe unity consciousness...the best ones are surrender, clarity, peace, and love. And the concepts behind all of those words are nothing if not felt and experienced.

Andy

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 12:13 am
by Webwanderer
snowheight wrote:Andy, kiki, in direct response to your last few posts I'd like to reiterate in a general fashion a point I offered earlier, and please forgive me if this is obvious but I think it important that it be offered at this juncture: one is limited in what one can BE by one's nature.

But what is that nature you refer to? Is it One's Essential nature that is infinite and the source of all that is? Or is it the more limited apparent nature that is expressed uniquely in form. Regardless of the ego's imaginary reality, there is an expressed nature based on the belief constructs of each individualization or personality. And while we may be awakening to the realization we are not what we "think" we are, that is hardly a confirmed qualification for being enlightened on the scale of infinite source. Somehow there is more to be seen in the bigger picture of life.

WW

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:27 am
by snowheight
Wanderer,

Thank you for asking this question.

Webwanderer wrote:
snowheight wrote:Andy, kiki, in direct response to your last few posts I'd like to reiterate in a general fashion a point I offered earlier, and please forgive me if this is obvious but I think it important that it be offered at this juncture: one is limited in what one can BE by one's nature.


But what is that nature you refer to? Is it One's Essential nature that is infinite and the source of all that is? Or is it the more limited apparent nature that is expressed uniquely in form.


Definitely only the latter.

This is where I perceive a disconnect between the "anti-Secret" posters and the counter, positive posts on the more general "Law of Attraction": my guess is that most of the objections are based on the naive and perhaps potentially exploitative aspects of "The Secret" which would suggest that we can simply wish away the limitations of our "unique expressions in form".

Webwanderer wrote:Regardless of the ego's imaginary reality, there is an expressed nature based on the belief constructs of each individualization or personality. And while we may be awakening to the realization we are not what we "think" we are, that is hardly a confirmed qualification for being enlightened on the scale of infinite source. Somehow there is more to be seen in the bigger picture of life.


Yeah I've only had glimpses of this and must admit to ignorance of much of the tradition which points to what you are referring to. On this point I can only plead for patience for my expressions of viewpoints from the perspective of a tradition of secular skepticism. Tolle's introduction to direct experience has been startling, shocking and somewhat disorienting. I might have felt there was something deeper than the physical world all along, and yeah, even yearned for something transcendent that I could accept. I could, pre-Tolle, always take solace in dismissing this as a musing. No longer.

To circle back around (and this is only a tangential point at best), I would re-iterate my metaphor from a previous thread about reading the Bible to a cat with regard to the question of the relationship between the two natures that you elucidate above.

Namaste,

snowheight

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 6:51 am
by Sighclone
Tolle's introduction to direct experience has been startling, shocking and somewhat disorienting. I might have felt there was something deeper than the physical world all along, and yeah, even yearned for something transcendent that I could accept.


That is another paradox. Snowheight, you have a deep, powerful, integrative, skeptical mind. In most human endeavors, that is a blessing. For waking up, it is a curse. You can conceive of tests which nondualism must pass that others could not even understand. Eckhart's bold statement that the ego is a "false self created by unconscious identification with the mind," is a serious body blow to a powerful intelligent person, unless they decide to throw out the baby with the bathwater...in which case we get the "mumbo-jumbo" rejection of the New York Times' review of PON...and on to more comfortable authors like Wayne Dyer and Scott Peck.

But not you. You have hung in there. And, by the way, those of us who grind away here love strong, clear questioning minds. One sword sharpens the other, and mental challenges to others is in fact encouraged on this forum, so long as there are no personal attacks, and we are all attempting to refine our word-bound pointers, which, of course, is all we can ever do, hoping for a little bit of Source to leak in around them, maybe even through them.

I had the same experience -- utterly blasted out. Spent four months kind of stumbling around, knowing that whatever was happening to "me" had to return for the "rest" of "me." Warts and all. Fixations and all. Painbody and all. And so it has gone...angstrom by angstrom.

Andy

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Fri Jun 11, 2010 2:01 pm
by Webwanderer
snowheight wrote:Yeah I've only had glimpses of this and must admit to ignorance of much of the tradition which points to what you are referring to. On this point I can only plead for patience for my expressions of viewpoints from the perspective of a tradition of secular skepticism.


Honest skepticism is as healthy as is a genuine interest in the discovery of truth. It takes both to keep one on the narrow path between cynicism and gullibility. Your posts and penetrating inquiry are a breath of fresh air. Many who come here express the same beautiful qualities. I make it a point to take frequent looks in the mirror on these same guidelines.

WW

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:42 am
by Mystic_Life
[quote="Sighclone"]I am very sorry, Chris. There has been, for the last five years, a tendency to avoid reference to a "higher self" in this forum. By everyone. It implies duality. The whole topic of "higher self" or "soul" is almost completely neglected here, and by Eckhart. Hence the "we." But my comments and opinions were mine alone.

Hi Andy,

Thanks for sharing. I guess I find it hard to believe that if a group has 2795 members that none of them find any usefulness in a phrase like "higher self" just because they have an interest in studying Tolle. I guess I'm a bit individualistic so I'd rather have someone ask what a word means to me before being told it's not acceptable to use (and absolutely everyone agress with me on this!) ;)

For myself, I find it useful in observing my process to differentiate between my "ego self" and my "higher self" which I believe is connected with truth. I don't particularly care how others use such words as it works for me. I don't have any reason to believe that Tolle has everything figured out, but I do love his work on "the pain body" and "presence" and therefore would like to participate without feeling as though there is a correct or incorrect way of using language. However, I feel that if I'm bringing up a question such as "Is there a higher self?" then it would be appropriate to share reflections...but again that could be accomplished from the viewpoint of one's opinion as opposed to portraying a belief that everyone in the group is in agreement on something (unless of course there has been a poll, and everyone actually agreed with something...which seems rare in spritual exploration).

Peace,
Chris

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:30 am
by Sighclone
Speaking only for myself, the idea of a higher self (Big Soul Andy) just seems like another identity in form -- albeit on the soul-plane. I did go through a Michael Newton "Life Between Lives" past life regression and seem to have seen "other past lives" and also the dreamscape of the soul plane. At that stage in my life, it was very interesting to me.

I really don't care about it now. Upon my death, if I "wake up on the other side" as a Light Being (Danison) and run into other pals and seem to have the opportunity to reincarnate as a shuttle pilot on some other planet, or as a buffalo, or as a spiritual teacher, or a second-baseman, or whatever...that will be interesting. But only casually so.

I'm more interested in living my best life right now.

But many others may wish to discuss this. I would ask (not demand) that you open a new thread on "higher self" if you wish to pursue it with the other members...this one was devoted to The Secret.

Andy

Re: The Secret vs. Ekchart???

PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 2:15 pm
by Webwanderer
Chris, feel free to start a thread on "Is there a 'higher Self' " and see where it goes. Could be fun and insightful.

WW

Re:

PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:32 pm
by Seeker1977
Slyder wrote:To me it seems using the law of attraction to create what you want, is playing with the world of form, which once you know your true essence, you can do just for fun. No attachment to what you create.


This seems all right to me.

Also, in the teaching of The Secret I noticed many similar points with the Silva Method (a.k.a. Silva Mind Control). Actually, as I see, the Silva Method even has techniques to make The Secret work - for example the Mirror of The Mind. For those who don't know the Silva Method: basically you go into a near-sleep state called the "Alpha State" (okay, this is not entirely correct, but this is the shortest way to describe it) and then you visualise whatever you would like to achieve.

Re:

PostPosted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:56 pm
by Seeker1977
heidi wrote:Here is an interesting article about The Secret


Thanks for the article. I think the author's opinion is a bit extreme. I take The Secret as a tool. It can be used well or can be misused...