Are these dangerous Christian mystics on the road to hell?

[Soma-Sight]

Hi Soma-Sight Good to "see" you

I'm sorry, my friend, but much as this place can at times be an interesting environment, I don't always have the stomach for some of the things that I now and then read here From time to time I go back to my mountains. At that altitude there is always a fresh wind. One of the good things about that wind is that it keeps the poisonous flies away ........ if you get my drift

Thats beautiful....

You really do get it...

I need to go to the "mountain" for a while as well. :wink:

 

[Lonelyguide]

No ... nobody "gets it" ...

You see ... "getting" is a bit of an awkward word.

The thing is that the illusion which we all share in this world is that there is a difference between "having" and "being." In a realm which, unlike the realm where you and I live, is not transient, however ... the realm of Spirit ... there is no difference between "having" and "being." There one has what one is, and one is what one has. And since there one is everything, one also has everything.

Getting merely came about because in this realm ... the one where you and I reside at present ... we delude ourselves into believing that we don't have everything and that "getting" will permit us to become what we aren't. That is the lie that we all tell ourselves ... an aspect of the veil which needs to be lifted. The criminal, for instance - mankind's ultimate loser - tells himself the biggest lie. He, once the spoils of his moils permit him to acquire ... and view himself with ... the attributes of a winner, will tell himself that he is a winner and we all know, of course, that this is not the case, because only the fact that the criminal permits himself certain "shortcuts" that less dishonest others don't permit themselves may cause that he can view himself with the attributes of a winner. Appearing through having, however, is not the same as being. And so he may appear to "be" a winner, but he "is", in fact, a loser ... if you don't mind a few "labels" such as these.

An interesting illustration is the word "authority." One has authority when one is an authority, but since all true authorship is of God, none of us can truly be an authority or claim authority. Only God has authority and everyone who may appear to have some sort of authority because of his knowledge, will therefore on the one hand understand how much he knows, but will also ... if he is sincere ... understand how much he still needs to learn.

Therefore I have to say that I don't "get it." I may perhaps get a little bit more than certain others, but saying of myself that I "get it" would immediately illustrate how little I had really "gotten it" ... there is still so much to learn.

Of Jesus one could say that He "got it," but if one would wish to be semantically correct, one should say that that He "had it." He "had it" because He "was it" and He "was it" because He "lived it."

I myself "live it" to some extent, but only to some extent and I know all to well to which enormous extent I still don't "live it."
.... And if I really did "get it" I would probably no longer still be doing that (I would no longer "not wholly be living it" I mean ).

One doesn't "get it." One can only "have" it when one "is it"

Sorry for all these words, but this is not an easy one to explain :wink:

 

[Soma-Sight]

Listen Lonely guide....

All I was saying is I like your style and you have a good head on your shoulders....

That is what I mean by "getting it".

Good post though!

:

 

[Lonelyguide]

Thank you for your kindness.

All of it, however, merely mental constructs aimed at sharing fragments of relatively relevant concepts. Just thoughts ... I said it somewhere else ... like letters on the blackboard about to be wiped away by the Hand of the Master.

 

[Soma-Sight]

like letters on the blackboard about to be wiped away by the Hand of the Master.

Thats intense.

I have thought about the "little death of the ego" that way as well.

Sometimes it frightens me... Other times it enlightens me. :wink:

This is where True Faith will come in handy!

 

[Lonelyguide]

The ego does not have to die or, as some believe ... many Buddhists for instance, to be destroyed. One simply has to get to a place from where one can see the ego for what it is, from where one has the option to say "down boy" when one chooses to do so, or from where what is eventually left of that ego can finally be re-integrated into a mind that will then no longer be conflicted/split. Then you will begin, as Christ said, "to see with one eye."

 

[Soma-Sight]

The ego does not have to die or, as some believe ... many Buddhists for instance, to be destroyed. One simply has to get to a place from where one can see the ego for what it is, from where one has the option to say "down boy" when one chooses to do so, or from where what is eventually left of that ego can finally be re-integrated into a mind that will then no longer be conflicted/split. Then you will begin, as Christ said, "to see with one eye."

Interesting.

If one has experienced ego destruction and the resulting consequence of acute psychosis... do you believe that it was because the individual was not ready to "see with one eye" due to pride or sin issues?

How important are chastity, fasting, meditation, prayer for integrating the mind into the unitive state?

From my own personal experience I believe spiritual diciplines to be the "Way" of intergrating the mind into selfless thinking?

Of course others like Aldous Huxley argue that "Garatuitous Grace" is not dependant on these things and spiritual "works" will do little to help bring about the "moksha" or "seeing with one eye" as Christ has put it.

I disagree with Huxley on this.

 

[Solo]

The ego does not have to die or, as some believe ... many Buddhists for instance, to be destroyed. One simply has to get to a place from where one can see the ego for what it is, from where one has the option to say "down boy" when one chooses to do so, or from where what is eventually left of that ego can finally be re-integrated into a mind that will then no longer be conflicted/split. Then you will begin, as Christ said, "to see with one eye."

Jesus never said "to see with one eye".

Are you referring to Jesus' words that speak of removing the eye that offends so that one not be cast into hell?

Here are all of the verses of scripture where Jesus used the word eye:

Matthew 5:29
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 5:38
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Matthew 6:22
The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Matthew 6:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7:4
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Matthew 7:5
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Matthew 18:9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew 20:15
Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?

Matthew 7:22
Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

Mark 9:47
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Mark 10:25
It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Luke 6:41
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Luke 6:42
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

Luke 11:34
The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness.

Luke 18:25
For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[Lonelyguide]

If one has experienced ego destruction and the resulting consequence of acute psychosis... do you believe that it was because the individual was not ready to "see with one eye" due to pride or sin issues?

What you mention here ... ego destruction within the context of acute psychosis ... describes a psychological condition which, to my knowledge, can only be the result of excessive drug abuse. Consequently we are talking about two very different things here. When we speak of various ways of reducing the importance of ego within the context of enlightenment (whether we agree upon terming that "dissolving," "re-integrating" or any other name) the result thereof can never be a psychosis. Rather the opposite will be the case

How important are chastity, fasting, meditation, prayer for integrating the mind into the unitive state?

All can help, but many of these are used in ways which are not correct. Many, for instance, meditate but since they do so without sufficient preparation and thus without the integrity that is required, their meditating is like waxing a floor without cleaning it first.

For me ... but that is just for me ... there are two that are important. The first ... the very, very first ... is integrity ("to thine own self be true" ) ... integrity to an extent which only the truly sincere will experience. One can never experience oneness with our Creator when one is not first "at One" with oneself. Therefore integrity comes first.

You may find this strange, but the second ... again, just for me ... is fasting. But not just fasting in any way. One must truly fast and do so uninterruptedly for at least six weeks on end. The results of a true fast spent in solitude, prayer and meditation are astonishing to say the least

 

[Soma-Sight]

You may find this strange, but the second ... again, just for me ... is fasting. But not just fasting in any way. One must truly fast and do so uninterruptedly for at least six weeks on end. The results of a true fast spent in solitude, prayer and meditation are astonishing to say the least

WOW!

I have been called to a prolonged fast for many years by the Spirit but have not had the oppurtunity to do it yet.

Did you do a water only fast?

That is the direction I want to go. Water only. Moses and Jesus style. I have done 3, 7, 10 days but nothing that hard core.

Any suggestions for an event like this?

 

[Lonelyguide]

Did you do a water only fast?

No, I didn't.
I did, of course, drink water during the fast.
As for food: initially I only had one small and very simple meal once every two days, but after a while I only ate once (very little) once every three days. I must add that I fasted a bit longer than six weeks ... eight weeks I believe. Six weeks of true fasting, however, already produces amazing results: one becomes much more receptive and perceptive.
Oh ... I don't know whether that is interesting for you, but I recall that I lost some 53 pounds.

 

[Soma-Sight]

No, I didn't.
I did, of course, drink water during the fast.
As for food: initially I only had one small and very simple meal once every two days, but after a while I only ate once (very little) once every three days. I must add that I fasted a bit longer than six weeks ... eight weeks I believe. Six weeks of true fasting, however, already produces amazing results: one becomes much more receptive and perceptive.
Oh ... I don't know whether that is interesting for you, but I recall that I lost some 53 pounds.

That is impressive to say the least!

As far as overall effects went... did you feel much more peaceful and serene? Was introspection enhanced? Sex drive diminished?

Were you able to go out in nature much during the fast?

 

[Lonelyguide]

For me ... the overall effects (after some six weeks and more) were beyond my wildest imagenings, but then I never expected anything and was not looking for "results." I opened up and allowed the experience to happen. There was no "control" from my side and I can say in all honesty that I surrendered to the experience without asking or expecting anything at all. That, probably, was why it "produced" what it did. Perhaps I should add that not eating, no sex, etc. is not such a major thing once one truly gets into this. When one is that close to one's Maker food is much, much less of a necessity than one would expect. One is "nurtured" in other ways What I found most striking in terms of "effect," however - like I intimated previously - was the extent to which one's perceptiveness augments. For starters one's perceptiveness as regards oneself (the extent to which one is truly of a core-splitting honesty with oneself and the extent to which one "applies" this) and, as a consequence thereof, the extent to which one becomes perceptive as to the orchestration that we - whether we are aware of it or not - are all subjected to c.q. part of. Initially this translates into a much greater awareness as to the "nudges" one gets from the realm of the Spirit and later on this has a consequence as to the extent to which one becomes one with the "flow" of what I would call "Truth."

 

[Lonelyguide]

If one has experienced ego destruction and the resulting consequence of acute psychosis... do you believe that it was because the individual was not ready to "see with one eye" due to pride or sin issues?

What you mention here ... ego destruction within the context of acute psychosis ... describes a psychological condition which, to my knowledge, can only be the result of excessive drug abuse. Consequently we are talking about two very different things here. When we speak of various ways of reducing the importance of ego within the context of enlightenment (whether we agree upon terming that "dissolving," "re-integrating" or any other name) the result thereof can never be a psychosis. Rather the opposite will be the case

Last time I was somewhat stretched for time and consequently gave a fairly brief reply. I'd like to elaborate just a bit:

Even if various streams within psychology may appear to be gradually converging where a growing number of primarily empiric basic concepts are concerned, one must remember that, rather than a science, psychology is merely a discipline.

What psychologists call "destruction of the ego" within the context of an acute psychosis ... a term behind which they will hide their ignorance of a phenomenon which may occur as a consequence of excessive drug abuse, is actually a label which demonstrates that relative ignorance.

The thing is that in this case the ego is not destroyed. In fact, all ingredients of that former ego will still exist. They are merely "splattered all over the place" or, if you like, the extent of their former cohesion ... if the ego can at all be truly coherent ... is temporarily no longer there.

I once had someone referred to me who suffered from this condition. I can tell you that the symptoms of this type of psychosis were terrifying ... for the patient at least ... and that they have nothing to do with the "dissolving," the "surrendering or "the "re-integration" of the ego which may come about as a result of stages on the path of enlightenment.

The difference between these two is, in fact, that they are exact opposites in the sense that the former (the one resulting in psychosis) implies dis-integration whereas the latter (enlightenment) implies an advanced stage of re-integration.