Bodhisattva, Karmic Shepard, part 1

[David Morris]

I riff on these concepts.  I am inhabited by Shakti, Kundalini awakening
for three years plus now. But I speak of meta reality models only
intuited.  It is a strange space to inhabit, this Kundalini, stumbled upon
unaware that it existed via meditation, yet forcing, gently, acceptance of
a realm spiritual upon my everyday life.  Experience, for years now, of
Kundalini energy as a personal internal guru force is enough to make my
skeptic into a knower.

David Morris




Regarding

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:08 AM Bruno <bruno.laze at gmail.com> wrote:

> Consciousness and play... hmmm. Reminds of George H. Mead, a great
> underrated sociologist. According to him, subjectivity is born through the
> ability of consciousness to play with itself.
>
> Interesting model, I used to associate the male concept with active, and
> the female with passive. But it makes more sense the other way.
>
> 2017-04-10 20:25 GMT-05:00 David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>:
>
> OK, more metaphysical mind play:
>
> Why would perfection delve into imperfection?
>
> Talking Heads has an answer:  "Heaven is a place where nothing ever
> happens."
>
> Consciousness without play is as good as dead.  Thus the concept of Shiva
> (inert but limitless potential) and Shakti (limitless life creating energy,
> needing a space in which to play).
>
> In this model Shiva, the male, is passive, and Shakti, female, is active.
> This is the ancient Hindu model long before the later Yin/Yang model.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:17 AM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I agree that the question of WHY Maya isn't answerable.
>
> "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing
> formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"
> Romans 9:20
>
> So one is only left to start with what IS, as you quote Wittgenstein.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Bruno <bruno.laze at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry about that, I hit tab and then some other button (I hate that tab,
> makes me lose so many e-mails). So:
>
> I see it as a lighthearted take on the question that Eastern or Western
> religion cannot answer in satisfying way, and is so well put by
> Wittgenstein in the Tractatus:
> The Mystic about the world is not *how *it is, but *that *it is.
> That story about one true Consciousness doesn't give a good answer on why
> there is a Maya (our illusory world). Neither does Christianity: why did
> good bother to create a world? If he was perfect, he wouldn't have to do
> anything besides what he already was doing.
>
>
> 2017-04-10 9:49 GMT-05:00 Bruno <bruno.laze at gmail.com>:
>
> I don't think that's postmodern; I see it as a lighthearted take on the
> question that Eastern or Western religion can
>
> 2017-04-09 8:27 GMT-05:00 David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>:
>
> That last line was meant as a joke.
>
> The gist was a take on reality and experience.
>
> David Morris
>
> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 6:36 AM Ian Livingston <igrlivingston at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> fuck that. god has nothing to do with it. its just a handy metaphor for
> displacing responsibility. comes to that it's me that pisses me off, not
> god. i could be doing more to set my life right.
>
> On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 9:34 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/b_fbodi.htm
>
> Many Eastern spiritual paths believe that all beings are ultimately not
> separate individuals, but are instead eternal and recurring individual
> manifestations of a single all-pervading creating Consciousness, both
> creator and perceiver. In this schema Shakespeare was right: "All the
> world's but a stage." Perceived reality is paper thin.  Real reality is a
> unifying Consciousness that stages a play for itself.  Shiva and Shakti.
> Underneath all perceived reality is the creator who is us, both Shiva and
> Shakti, who are one.
>
> So, next is the Matrix-like concept that everything we see is an illusion,
> a deception.  But in this case the deception is a state assumed voluntary,
> like taking a drug.  In this matrix God has intentionally given himself a
> Mickey to see if he can find his way back to himself. A perverse god,
> willingly creating bad in order to experience it, which wouldn't be so bad,
> except we are his vehicles of experience. Creation in this scenario is a
> game God is playing with himself.  How postmodern is that?
>
> David Morris
>
> God pisse me off!
>
> David Morris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20170412/b154d670/attachment.html>