You are hereForums / Friendship / Friendship 16 with Kim Michaels, (Estonia)
Friendship 16 with Kim Michaels, (Estonia)
Both Kim and I could probably talk for a long time without our interest lagging. What is that "reality beyond human experience"? Can you describe it? Is it worth trying, or is it the describing which keeps you in the role of a seeker?
- 1323 reads
-
Quote Richard: "Can you describe it? Is it worth trying, or is it the describing which keeps you in the role of a seeker?"
Response: Descriptions happen or not. Taking this question to be real (as if man had the choice), is the illusion to be understood.
Peter: "But it all emanates from the desire to describe."
Response: Nobody is there to stop desires, for man is not the doer.
Quote Peter's picture: "Be still and know."
Response: Understand mind as sound. This: no-mind! A "still" mind deceives itself by believing to be able to keep quiet. "Keep quiet!" is just spiritual punishment.
"A 'still' mind deceives itself by believing to be able to keep quiet. 'Keep quiet!' is just spiritual punishment.", says Marcus.
An understandable position for a man who has placed all his chips into the pile 'cause he holds a straight suit of Sound in his hands.
Not to worry, though.
I don't share Silence with anyone who views it as spiritual punishment.
Or prefers Sound to it.
Peter: "I don't share Silence with anyone who views it as spiritual punishment. Or prefers Sound to it."
Response: Real silence is not the opposite to sound! Real silence (="no-mind") is - if it happens - to understand mind as just sound and not as real in life. Mind as sound will always be present in man, illusory though it is. Trying to avoid sound is "spiritual punishment" for there is no choice.
Very interesting conversation between Richard and Kim!
I enjoyed it really and had also a lot of fun. Thank you both.
Although Richard apologiezed for being disjointed and slow to come on, to me it was quite the opposite, being an interesting discussion which displayed two different ways of expressing the same content: the Real and how to be able to speak about it:
Richard ruthlessly deconstructing the conceptual mind to get to the core of our being and Kim trying to build up a structure of meaning in the creaton process.
Richard with his entertaining and contagious concept/story-phobia contra Kim`s idea of a creator curious about experiencing the creation from inside.
Listening and following with attention one can ask oneself: where do I stand in this process?
I think that Kim is right saying that we can use words when we have understood their relative value.
On the other hand there is a mark of the old Christian mythology in the idea of God having created man to experience his own creation.
It is more generous to think everything, from particles to our brain being a movement of the Spirit experiencing itself from inside and outside (immanence and transcendence).
At the same time i like the idea of the spiral vs. a circle.
This could imply that, having deconstructed all the concepts,following the spiral movement back and upwards one can also use the concepts again although from an other perspective.
Thnks again.
Anna
I don't know if IAMTRUTH is registered to our site. His comment is an interesting analysis. Kind of, we're only talking to ourselves.
What is my role? My role on NNH and my "role" in life? My role on NNH is definitely not to be awake. When I declare that I AM, perhaps NNH will wrap. (finish). My role in life is not to have a role. Sneakily said to escape any consequence, as we discover below. HERE IT IS:
IAMTRUTH 20 hours ago (x) +1 + -
Dear viewers of this video, Kim and Richard,
Kim is right when he says that the ego is not listening to understand others, but is only out to validate his own accepted concept. Both Richard and Kim are doing this. Kim wants to prove that there is a possibility there is a higher truth that can be brought down, and Richard wants to prove that you cannot define truth in a dualistic way by yourself, but only experience life, end of story...
They are right from their point of view, they just have different blind spots. They have something in common, they don't see the Way through the heart, but came up with a different concept to avoid a big disappointment and eventually depression, for that is what the consciousness of separation from God eventually leads to.
The difference between them while both only using the mind and not looking for God's truth in their own heart is:
-Kim thinks he can define truth with his mind.
-Richard thinks he cannot define truth with his mind (calling it stories)
-Kim has not accepted he can't define truth and has the need to explain his truth to others to avoid depression.
-Richard has given up on the thought, feels non-attached to truth and became nihilist to avoid his depression.
What's in it for them in the short run?
-Kim does it to feel needed, righteous with God, the Savior of men. He has made his own concept of what God is from the time he did listen to God.
-Richard has "the hand" in all discussion, he never really has to engage in a discussion, and therefore has already won, because whatever you say, he will say it is a story and not truth.
Kim knows he has not got "the hand" and tries to appeal to his nihilist views to get him to listen by using his famous "or what ever you want to call it", which is actually a cover-up, (false non-attachments), for his Savior attitude.
Richard smiles like he has found the truth, that you can't define truth at all, but this is still coming from his mind, so still a concept. He is establishing with the mind, what you can't establish with the mind, and this confusion is the base for his smile. Richard had an aha moment where he saw no goal of life, no God, no true teaching using his mind and the five senses, yet he keeps looking for something...
When God tries to reach somebody it is to reach the heart of somebody, because the heart is the source of truth that a person can rely on. When you speak from the heart, somebody may recognize this truth with his heart, thereby finding his heart, and truth for himself. Kim, you used to speak from the heart, and thereby reach the hearts of those who were ready to take a next step towards God. People only take the step towards focus on God, when they find him in their own hearts.
Heart > Heart
Now you are taking a different approach, where you use stories that appeal to the mind of people, and you speak to them from the mind.
Mind > Mind
Kim, what are you expecting to accomplish with this? Are you hoping that through understanding your concept of truth, they will start looking where to find the Truth in themselves, and might even stumble upon their own heart? If you are not showing them the truth of God that flows through your heart, how will they ever recognize it in themselves and find the Kingdom of God within?
Teaching is not about belief (mind), but about recognizing truth and opening your self to truth found within the heart. Being is about expressing that which you find in your heart.
Remember when Jesus woke you up in the middle of the night and asked you where the kingdom of God is? what would you say nowadays?
You are taking the low road of the church fathers who have set themselves up as the only way to God, and you are creating attachments to your truth that comes from your mind. Kim, you will appeal to the followers of false truth, those who also want to be a somebody, but without God to show you the way.
Kim and Richard, you are both prideful men, still both believing that the concepts from your mind are truth. Your concepts only become more sophisticated so that no one can prove them wrong. You have both proven that in this video, for you have not moved one iota from your concepts, let alone come closer to the truth found in heart, the truth that can have a beautiful expression in the world of form.
"What is my role? My role on NNH and my "role" in life? My role on NNH is definitely not to be awake. When I declare that I AM, perhaps NNH will wrap. (finish). My role in life is not to have a role."
You ask a very poignant question, Sir Richard. I hope that you won't mind if I add another entree to the buffet table that you so competently perform garde manger duties over.
You echo the sentiments of many people who come to the feast table of NNH. They, too, desire to be role-less as you do.
That aspiration, however, can often be a problematic one. Simply because what you resist, persists. And what you push away (i.e. roles) you also give continued substance to hang around.
Roles are not problematic. Our identification with them often are.
You can have a role or two or three, but not necessarily be identified with them.
I encourage you, Richard, to not resist anything. Including roles. Instead, and as someone wisely put it a long time ago, you can be "in it but not of it".
What you don't want or are pushing away from you... is what you are giving continued apparent life to... just from the act of pushing it away.
I think that Richard's introductory questions are key here...
"Can you describe it? Is it worth trying, or is it the describing which keeps you in the role of a seeker?"...
because they omit the most significant component to this whole process:
the desire (<--- underlined) to describe.
Whether or not our descriptions are helpful or effective is an interesting topic for many a descriptive discussion.
But it all emanates from the desire to describe.
And a strange/wonder-full thing happens when the desire to describe is absent:
you begin to see the description-less.
New-born children aren't born with the desire to describe.
They're nurtured, by the significant adult figures in their lives, to do so.
So that they can join the ranks of labelers that the world is inundated with.