Monday, June 27, 2005

Thought, Time, and Love

"Thought is time.

Thought is born of experience and knowledge,

which are inseparable from time and the past.

Time is the psychological enemy of man.

Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time,

so man is always a slave to the past.

Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle.

There is no psychological evolution.

When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts,

he will see the division between the thinker and thought,

the observer and the observed,

the experiencer and the experience.

He will discover that this division is an illusion.

Then only is there pure observation

which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time.

This timeless insight

brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind."

A deep, radical mutation of the mind.


I have been thinking of this sentence all day.

What constitutes a deep, radical mutation of the mind?

What does it look like?

Let's start with love


"What is love?

The word is so loaded and corrupted that I hardly like to use it.

Everybody talks of love ,

every magazine and newspaper and every missionary

talks everlastingly of love.

I love my country,

I love my king,

I love some book,

I love that mountain,

I love pleasure,

I love my wife,

I love God.

Is love an idea?

If it is,

it can be cultivated, nourished, cherished,

pushed around, twisted in any way you like.

When you say you love God what does it mean?

It means that you love a projection of your own imagination,

a projection of yourself clothed in certain forms of respectability

according to what you think is noble and holy;

so to say, `I love God',

is absolute nonsense.

When you worship God you are worshipping yourself,

and that is not love. "


This a deep radical mutation of the mind.

It may be the basis of a new operating system

for the human biocomputer,

And the Earthfamily

Beyond Windows.


Earthfamily Principles

Earthfamilyalpha Content



*

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

There seems to be no question that we have to change our consciousness if we are to survive.

7:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think that are willing to change. We would have to reevaluate what we consider to be necessary creature comforts - Giant SUVs and Big Screen T.V.s and Bigger and bigger super malls and more and more STUFF.

We like our stuff.

7:24 AM  
Blogger OZ said...

Changing our operating system does not necessarily mean less. It should mean a great deal of more. Perhaps not more giant TVs, but more of the the things, ideas, joy, and health we all actually want.

We can live together richly and meaningfully without prejudicing our environment, our neighbors, and our own well being.

I would offer, that it is a matter of understanding our condition and acting responsibly... and then consciously choosing a more advanced operating system which, once embraced will transform the super ego, and thus the indididual egos of humankind.

There are examples of this in culture today. The super ego of Japan is different from the super ego of the West.

We can forge a new, more advanced shaping of our mental, emotional, and spiritual worlds, once we recognize that the current program model is out of date and headed for a crash.

8:00 AM  
Anonymous ktphd said...

Some wise teachers say that our human system is not wired fully for this kind of thing. I say we are in the process as a species of opening to more love, more joy, more fun, more authentic everything. Losing the mind and opening the body is one doorway.

8:12 AM  
Anonymous Catalina said...

In my own personal survey of women friends, the best consensus I have found to define the 'love connection' is to mean that another persons welfare is as important to me as my own. The statement, "I love those shoes," is semantic trickery and can be ignored. Perhaps the word love is essentially limited to relationships between living things.

As per-radical mutations, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? The change within the individual as insight or reaction to the governings of the "mass of men" that "live lives of quiet desperation", the superego? Or does the the collective conscience change by one enlightened individual at a time? In other words, can we change our government/governing if we don't change ourselves? My friend say's, "living well is the best revenge." This may be a very useful, if not succinct philosophy, if taken responsibly to bring about the change we wish to see (be) in the world. I think it is a parallel process. On second thought, forget the ("god damn") chicken and the egg.

8:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last two words of this post. wow! somehow that double meaning hit me like a strong fresh gale.

9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think that we are willing to change without some serious prodding - whatever form of apocalypse necessary

11:28 AM  
Blogger OZ said...

thank you anons, Cat, Ktphd, all for your thoughful comments.

Remember the cartoon with the satisfied egg and the frustrated chicken in bed?

I guess that settles that issue.

11:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home