Theos-Talk Archives (October 1997 Message tt00018)

Brenda:

> > Of course they exist simultaneously, everything exists together
> > with itself and all other things.  This is axiomatic.  It is
> > dialectical/Aristotelian thinking which creates separations.  It
> > must be either or.  Why not both.  It seems to me that pure-love
> > is not the illusion, but this idea that there must be
> > separatness.  Union with the Absolute is rather matter of factly
> > purity and love manifest in our living flesh.
>
> I didn't get "love" from this answer.  So, in that sense, does
> it exist?

Let's first know, from this beginning that I have no answers, am
just writing unashamedly trying to understand self.  In response
to your response:

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it really
fall? Of course it does, if it fell at all.  More to the point.
Perhaps you did not "get love" because my attempt at expression
is not pure enough, love is surely intended, offered, and given
here now!.  What I had hoped to say was that purity and love are
one.  Without one, there is cannot the other be.  An act of love
is a total giving of oneself, without selfishness.  Without want
and desire It is pure in it intent of giving and empty in its
expectation.

It is deep, rich, and silly.  It is shante/ananda, i.e., the joy,
bliss and peace of simply being, sharing and giving.  There are
too many words here.  I don't want to write into inexperience, I
want to attempt to speak from my experience of purity/loving.  So
let me stop.

> "goodness" is always straying, but Goodness is pure.  There I
> believe are no towers of ivory, particularly if you mean by this
> a place to escape the lack of "goodness." There is no escaping
> the manifold of values in which we live.
>
> This is where we are, and this is now.  What else? Purity,
> Goodness, Love and simply vehicles, sometimes of an interpersonal
> nature, sometimes of a personal nature which are a finger
> pointing at the moon.  If you watch the finger, you never seen
> the moon.
>
> You seem to be speaking from a mental level.  I am speaking from
> my experiences.

I am speaking on a mental level, but not from a place of over
intellectualized philosophy.  Where else do we register/know our
experience, expect mentally.  How do we know ourselves? It seems
to me that paying attention to concepts, "purity, goodness, etc."
moves us far and fast away from experience.  Loving unselfishly
is purity.  Loving for gain is impure, hurtful and destructive.
This is my experience, form both sides of that coin.  Goodness
with the expectation of gain, even in respect or as an attempt to
ascend and meet with/be with the Masters who have gone before is
tainted, in my opinion.  I believe and feel that it is only to be
love, pure, good, with no expectation.  And I feel, know this to
be hard.  Mental level, yes, known experience, speaking, yes.
Lovingly.

Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by goodness.  Perhaps I
personalize the action more than you mean, perhaps I do not
personalize it enough.  I don't know.  The seven races as you
note them in your discussion, seem pulled away from and separated from
our living, expect as metaphor.  Metaphors are sometimes
excellent for explanation, but we do not live in them.  At bets
they are semiotic renditions which describe.  Goodness, for me,
is an expression of the seven harmonic rays, yes but brought
right up past the animal world into the objective self, that is
the conscious state of man, and then through its force, i.e.,
love right into psychic awakening, and the functional activity of
living.  Goodness must be that which is-being, here and now, in
the functional behavior of my living, breathing stillness.

Again, too many words, say too little.

Ananda,
Michael