Jan F. Brouwer containment thread

[shahrad]

Originally Posted by Jan F. Brouwer

Because nothing terrifies us as much as the vacuum. But mystical spirituality discloses the vacuum to be full of life and blissfulness.

Emptiness is form, as the Master said.

The Source of our life is beyond fullness and vacuum. Rest in the vacuum and you'll become full again.

I don't know if you understand what you are writing or if 'the Master' did understand what he did say. For example what does it mean: Rest in the vacuum? Only very few ppl know this, therefore only few ppl will understand it. Therefore let me put the answer in words which everyone understands and no one whoever reads it for only one time will ever forget it, my words are always a killing field for scientists and ahteists, as soon as they enter it, there is no way out:
When we do watch a movie, why do we next time watch another movie? Cause it didn't satisfy us, with other words we didn't accept it. If we would accept it, we would never watch another movie. We would almost always watch the same movie.
BTW
This is the meaning of : Ein fester Burcht ist unser Gott.

[Jan F. Brouwer]

I'm sorry if I can't explain everything about spirituality to you. But try to Google some words like 'sunyata' or 'Buddhist Emptiness' or 'Diamond Sutra about Form and Emptiness' and I'm sure you'll find something that makes sense to you.

My words are not at all devoid of meaning. But you have to have some expertise in spirituality to understand them.

Wiki and Google are there to help you further, ok?

Thanks for your interest in the postings.

[shahrad]

Originally Posted by Jan F. Brouwer

I'm sorry if I can't explain everything about spirituality to you. But try to Google some words like 'sunyata' or 'Buddhist Emptiness' or 'Diamond Sutra about Form and Emptiness' and I'm sure you'll find something that makes sense to you.

My words are not at all devoid of meaning. But you have to have some expertise in spirituality to understand them.

Wiki and Google are there to help you further, ok?

Thanks for your interest in the postings.

Thank you for your recommendations, although I guess not even your master or masters could ever define vacuum as simple as I did it and as clear as I did it.
Everything has a sign, and this is a sign of understanding and not google. Goolge helps knowing, not understanding.

[Splendour]

Originally Posted by Jan F. Brouwer

I'm sorry if I can't explain everything about spirituality to you. But try to Google some words like 'sunyata' or 'Buddhist Emptiness' or 'Diamond Sutra about Form and Emptiness' and I'm sure you'll find something that makes sense to you.

My words are not at all devoid of meaning. But you have to have some expertise in spirituality to understand them.

Wiki and Google are there to help you further, ok?

Thanks for your interest in the postings.

Sry, I didn't google this.

But Christianity has an aspect of emptying and filling to it. Vessels are a biblical topic.

As for forming wouldn't it help to know in advance what you were conforming to before you consented to the forming?

[EnlightenedRaise]

there is emptiness in form, and vice-versa.

the form reflects what the emptiness projects.
the emptiness has form which cannot be known to ego, for ego would be free to exercise unlimited power to its own demise.
this would defeat the purpose of this universe, which is evolution.

our vessels were always full while they were perceived to be empty.
it's a matter of stepping off the edge of that vase, and allowing oneself to fall into the clutches of fear, only to find the water's warm embrace..(Trust)

another leap of faith is necessary in order for the water to become wine..
there are different levels of Trust..

love to you Splendour..

[Jan F. Brouwer]

There are theories within consciousness studies saying that consciousness is not the product of the brain, but that the brain functions like a kind of 'radio receiver' or 'transmitter' mediating a wider field of information to a particular embodied consciousness working as an 'I'. This would explain some of the features of consciousness like shared architypes, shared ethics, shared understanding etc. It would also serve as a basis for some of the alleged paranormal qualities of consciousness.

Whatever you may think of this theory, however strange it may seem to you, it is good to point that naturalist and physicalist theories of consciousness are just as strange, because their theory tends to equate the brain to a gland secreting consciousness like hormones, an idea just as counter-intuitive as the first one, possibly.

As to the anatta theory, there are heavy debates within Buddhism, whether the Buddha denied a personal self altogehter or deemed it of a lower status than universal Buddhahood. Some say the Mahayana dogma of 'Buddha Nature' amounts to the same thing as the Hinduist Self: we all share a universal divine Self that isn't personal. The Buddhist, however, seem to deny the essence and the substantiality of this Self.

Personally I would say that the Nagaryunic tetralemma is also valid here:

We both have a personal self as well as we don't have a personal self and neither (because self and no-self are transcended in Sunyata and in the beyond-Sunyata).

[Jan F. Brouwer]

The most difficult aspect of our spiritual Path is the (gradual) discarding of all our attachments. We do not mind our pain and suffering being taken away from us (the sooner, even the better, we say), but nobody wants her pleasures and little personal victories to become meaningless in the end. We are so deeply attached to them. We think they give meaning to our lives.

But the mystical Path hurls us into the big Void, where all our usual habits come to null, even (or especially) the positive ones -all our little comforts and consolations- we are attached to the most.

True happiness is beyond the pleasure/pain duality. It's something completely new and unheard of. We must make way for it by discarding everything. Also the things we love right now.

[EnlightenedRaise]

[zumby]

[Splendour]

Originally Posted by Jan F. Brouwer

The most difficult aspect of our spiritual Path is the (gradual) discarding of all our attachments. We do not mind our pain and suffering being taken away from us (the sooner, even the better, we say), but nobody wants her pleasures and little personal victories to become meaningless in the end. We are so deeply attached to them. We think they give meaning to our lives.

But the mystical Path hurls us into the big Void, where all our usual habits come to null, even (or especially) the positive ones -all our little comforts and consolations- we are attached to the most.

True happiness is beyond the pleasure/pain duality. It's something completely new and unheard of. We must make way for it by discarding everything. Also the things we love right now.

If you think you're being profoundly psychological then you ought to contrast this with the Christian path of attachment.

The scriptures are the best source to learn it but since you seem to have a psychology bent I'd read Curt Thompson's Anatomy of the Soul.

You need to have at least a layman's grasp of psychology's attachment theory to be making statements on attachment.

It surprises me that when human beings are natural attachers from birth that they are so quick to throw away their attachments instead of learning if there is a better way of attaching.

[Jan F. Brouwer]

Some links about Christianity and non-attachment:

http://awakeningchristianity.blogspo...ttachment.html
http://www.askrealjesus.com/askrealj...beingpoor.html
http://www.anxietymadewell.com/way_t...rituality.html
http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/non-attachment.html

[Splendour]

Originally Posted by Jan F. Brouwer

Some links about Christianity and non-attachment:

http://awakeningchristianity.blogspo...ttachment.html
http://www.askrealjesus.com/askrealj...beingpoor.html
http://www.anxietymadewell.com/way_t...rituality.html
http://www.jesusjazzbuddhism.org/non-attachment.html

Don't know who all these writers are but I do know God says He is love (and who knows God better than God Himself?) and love is an emotion that aims at attachment not non-attachment.

Of course, you might have to pass through human emotion repeatedly before reaching God's highest rationality which is the agape form of love.

Rome wasn't built in a day and neither are people's soul connections. No wonder God established a Sabbath day.

[ajmargarine]

Originally Posted by Splendour

If you think you're being profoundly psychological then you ought to contrast this with the Christian path of attachment...(snip)

C'mon now Splendour. The way you are going to know what attachment even is, is by seeing it yourself in yourself; by directly experiencing it yourself. You won't "get it" by reading a book or through google.

Originally Posted by Jan F. Brouwer

Some links about Christianity and non-attachment:
http://awakeningchristianity.blogspo...ttachment.html

The opening paragraph in this link gives a simple explanation:

Attachment, in short form, is the process by which we mistakenly associate thoughts, emotions and bodily stimulations as verbatim expressions of “reality,” when these are simply the conditioned mind’s interpretation of internal biochemical processes. In this sense, attachment is a prison constructed by the unique mind of an individual that can have little bearing on reality. To get to a deeper level, one practices non-attachment. Non-attachment is a process of consciously transcending immediate experience, feelings and thoughts (generated by our biochemistry) in order to experience reality at a deeper level.

Thoughts pop into the mind. One attaches to them (this is good, this must be God), and one identifies with them. A habit of doing things is formed. (For example, making consistently styled posts in a forum for years.) And it becomes all conditioned reactions, re-acting out over and over that which was acted out before.

Right now, there are thoughts popping into your mind while reading this post. A reaction has already been fully formed for you by the conditioned mind; you just need to write it out. Now, what happens when you don't attach to that reaction? Is it possible? See if it is possible. Sit, notice the breath, be aware of the mental activity, but don't attach to the thoughts, let them go. Sit, breathe (aka 'get in the spirit'), don't attach, don't identify. And from THAT place one can experience God.

God's thoughts are not your thoughts. (Isa 55:8)
The carnal (conditioned) mind is enmity against God; it receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: neither can [it] know them. (Rom 8:7, 1Cor 2:14)

[EnlightenedRaise]

attachment or non-attachment tends be subjective and as such, is a very personal subject where there may be differing views.
the polarity exists for the purpose of experience and one is no better than the other.
therefore, one should thank one another in this grand opportunity to reflect one's perspectives.
both perspectives prove to more accurately portray Truth.

with that said, there are times when the releasing of certain emotional attachments provides one with the necessary perspective to objectively analyze the nature of that love.

non-attachment is traditionally considered a buddhist/taoist concept.
it can be said that non-attachment leads to true happiness.
on the other end of that spectrum, complete devotion is required in christianity.
it can be said that complete devotion can only lead to suffering through emotional attachment.

however, no religion possesses patent on Truth.

i enjoy the experience of non-attachment, and i also enjoy the experience of devotion to Source. Balance is key.

and for this, i am grateful.

thank you thrice for being me.
and love to you..

[EnlightenedRaise]

for centuries, religion has accomplished its purpose of division.
the separation is an illusion.
we are All One.

all in due time, for all is in divine order.