2011.04.02 - Siddhartha Buddha

[yossarian]

(Adding a few more cents)

I agree with you SomaticDreams about how this channelling demonstrates the mutual influence of channeller and source.

I think the biased language is directly happening due to the nature of the channelling process. Carla plays a role in selecting the right words to use, and she uses words that makes sense to her. Her explication of Buddhism therefore sounds a lot like what makes sense to her, what her perspective on it would be according to a mystical Christian and a Ra follower.

In the case of describing the Creator, I bet Carla sees the creator as both the Infinite One, the All-Being, as well as the more personal and anthropomorphized God. Her conception of the infinite includes both a personalized God as well as an impersonal Infinite Awareness.

This is how I see the Creator as well. Yogis endorse this view of the creator - seeing everything as the infinite one and infinity - and yet at the same time they suggest a personal relationship with a humanized creator can also be beneficial.

Buddhists, on the other hand, do not personalize infinity at all, and Christians exclusively personalize God. Hindus do both and the Ra Material also does both.

In the case of Carla, it's quite likely that she received a thought-form indicating "The One Infinite Creator" which she interprets to mean both God as well as Infinity or All-Being. The Ra concept of "The One Infinite Creator" is a bit of a melding of the two major ways of seeing the ultimate, infinite, union of everything.

So you can see that the purpose of the Q'uo channel process is certainly not to give an accurate and balanced representation of the two religions/religious figures. The channel is inextricably tied to Carla's personal vocabulary and apparently also to her personal experiences. Neutral language appears impossible in this type of channelling. You're always getting a big dose of the channeller as well as the message.

---

If you don't mind me asking, which texts have you read in the Hindu tradition, or have you had any extensive experience with gurus?

And also, which traditions in the Tibetan tradition? There are four major schools:

The Nyingma (The most Ancient School)
The Kagyu (Concerned with the oral transmission, and meditative insight)
The Sakya (Known as the scholarly lineage, focused highly on intellectual insight)
The Gelug (Focuses on virtuous living, a reformist movement. The school of which the Dalai Lama was raised within)

If you have no idea, it's quite alright. I would be interested to see what school you studied under to gain an understanding of your experience with Buddhism.

Thank you for the thoughtful replies.

Namaste

My Buddhism is mostly Theravada but I was heavily influenced by one teacher who was from the Dzogchen Tibetan tradition, I guess that means Nyingma.

I've done a hell of a lot of reading in all the religions, but also meditated and been instructed by various gurus/teachers from various places. For Hinduism I've read the Gita, Upanishads, bunch of other scriptures, but have not finished the entire Ramayana. I've read tons of Yoga books from a wide variety of gurus and also been instructed in person by a few yogis. I've read many commentaries on the Gita for instance and just countless books relating to Hinduism really, that religion puts out a lot of literature.

I've also read many Buddhist texts, from the Sutras to many different commentaries and expositions of buddhism and biographies of the Buddhia, as well as doing meditation and getting instruction from a few Buddhist masters.

After doing Buddhism for awhile, my meditation practice shifted toward Hinduism for the Bhakti (devotion). In hindsight, I wanted to express love and devotion toward the Creator to help with opening the heart.

Buddhism is great for Westerners coming from a Christian background because it removes a lot of the shame and guilt and self-flagellation that Christianity inevitably promotes. Bhakti Yoga suffers from this Christian pitfall as well. The Hindu/Christian dogmatic baggage very easily can get in the way.

It has been fairly easy for me to integrate the highest principles of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and the Ra material. I definitely see all of these like fingers pointing at the moon, and when it comes to the basic spiritual practice, on the important stuff I am able to see great agreement.

[SomaticDreams]

(Adding a few more cents)

I agree with you SomaticDreams about how this channelling demonstrates the mutual influence of channeller and source.

I think the biased language is directly happening due to the nature of the channelling process. Carla plays a role in selecting the right words to use, and she uses words that makes sense to her. Her explication of Buddhism therefore sounds a lot like what makes sense to her, what her perspective on it would be according to a mystical Christian and a Ra follower.

In the case of describing the Creator, I bet Carla sees the creator as both the Infinite One, the All-Being, as well as the more personal and anthropomorphized God. Her conception of the infinite includes both a personalized God as well as an impersonal Infinite Awareness.

This is how I see the Creator as well. Yogis endorse this view of the creator - seeing everything as the infinite one and infinity - and yet at the same time they suggest a personal relationship with a humanized creator can also be beneficial.

Buddhists, on the other hand, do not personalize infinity at all, and Christians exclusively personalize God. Hindus do both and the Ra Material also does both.

In the case of Carla, it's quite likely that she received a thought-form indicating "The One Infinite Creator" which she interprets to mean both God as well as Infinity or All-Being. The Ra concept of "The One Infinite Creator" is a bit of a melding of the two major ways of seeing the ultimate, infinite, union of everything.

So you can see that the purpose of the Q'uo channel process is certainly not to give an accurate and balanced representation of the two religions/religious figures. The channel is inextricably tied to Carla's personal vocabulary and apparently also to her personal experiences. Neutral language appears impossible in this type of channelling. You're always getting a big dose of the channeller as well as the message.

This might be up for discussion in "Advanced Studies" on the nature of channeling, methods of discerning distortion in channeled material (there is already some), and the nature of the infinite one, contrasted in all such traditions.

The only problem I see with the personification of the Infinite is the reification of the idea of a self, as being 'apart' from the creator. We are, to an extent, 'broken off' from this source, being individuated, but however- the language we use speaks us, and so I feel it important to use language that reflects a closer conception of the infinite. Other perspectives are useful for coming to an understanding, of course, but I believe there can be agreement on such matters.

Utilizing such language (as Ra does eloquently throughout the material) not only gives us a new conception of cosmology, but also a new language to utilize (densities, 3D-4D, catalyst, etc). This has greatly increased the progression of many beings, has it not? I believe this progress in language, and how we describe phenomena to be incredibly important, if not the most important (besides experiential catalyst). What we work with here though, on this board, is words.

[yossarian]

This might be up for discussion in "Advanced Studies" on the nature of channeling, methods of discerning distortion in channeled material (there is already some), and the nature of the infinite one, contrasted in all such traditions.

The only problem I see with the personification of the Infinite is the reification of the idea of a self, as being 'apart' from the creator. We are, to an extent, 'broken off' from this source, being individuated, but however- the language we use speaks us, and so I feel it important to use language that reflects a closer conception of the infinite. Other perspectives are useful for coming to an understanding, of course, but I believe there can be agreement on such matters.

Utilizing such language (as Ra does eloquently throughout the material) not only gives us a new conception of cosmology, but also a new language to utilize (densities, 3D-4D, catalyst, etc). This has greatly increased the progression of many beings, has it not? I believe this progress in language, and how we describe phenomena to be incredibly important, if not the most important (besides experiential catalyst). What we work with here though, on this board, is words.

I completely agree. My time following Christianity and Hinduism basically confirmed what you're saying. The "personal humanized God" is a extremely powerful metaphor with extremely major pitfalls.

By equating God with a parent, it's like your physical psychology jumps completely on board and your entire being is united in devotion toward that parent, with little resistance from the body or mind. For me this produced powerful manifestation ability and veil-piercing insight. At the same time it affirms separation between The All-Being and The Self, and so it needs some kind of antidote.

These days I tend to be more of a "neti neti" guy since this is inline with my personality. The path of discernment seems to dissolve away my distortions but it also leaves me heartbroken, pining for the "other" that isn't there. Neti neti does have a devotional component, because it is a kind of heartbroken search for the true self, and so it is driven by devotion and faith, and I go around identifying each illusion and noting how it is not the true reality or the true self. It is not the All-Being. In this way Neti neti, for me, has been a way of balancing between the personal God and the All-Being.

The Buddhist approach is simpler and happier I guess, but maybe I want the drama of the search or something. "Neti neti" is not something I chose but rather something I discovered I was already doing.

The Buddha went around visiting all the religions and gurus looking for the Truth and the solution to suffering, until he realized it was nowhere/everywhere. When I said earlier that "neti neti" does seem to manifest in the Buddha's life, this is what I meant, and Q'uo mentioned it too. I am on a very similar search, but ironically this search does not motivate me to follow the straight and narrow moderate path that the Buddha prescribes. Rather, it motivates me to follow in his foolish footsteps and repeat the foolish mistakes he made. I think my true nature just loves the search itself.

[SomaticDreams]

I completely agree. My time following Christianity and Hinduism basically confirmed what you're saying. The "personal humanized God" is a extremely powerful metaphor with extremely major pitfalls.

By equating God with a parent, it's like your physical psychology jumps completely on board and your entire being is united in devotion toward that parent, with little resistance from the body or mind. For me this produced powerful manifestation ability and veil-piercing insight. At the same time it affirms separation between The All-Being and The Self, and so it needs some kind of antidote.

These days I tend to be more of a "neti neti" guy since this is inline with my personality. The path of discernment seems to dissolve away my distortions but it also leaves me heartbroken, pining for the "other" that isn't there. Neti neti does have a devotional component, because it is a kind of heartbroken search for the true self, and so it is driven by devotion and faith, and I go around identifying each illusion and noting how it is not the true reality or the true self. It is not the All-Being. In this way Neti neti, for me, has been a way of balancing between the personal God and the All-Being.

The Buddhist approach is simpler and happier I guess, but maybe I want the drama of the search or something. "Neti neti" is not something I chose but rather something I discovered I was already doing.

The Buddha went around visiting all the religions and gurus looking for the Truth and the solution to suffering, until he realized it was nowhere/everywhere. When I said earlier that "neti neti" does seem to manifest in the Buddha's life, this is what I meant, and Q'uo mentioned it too. I am on a very similar search, but ironically this search does not motivate me to follow the straight and narrow moderate path that the Buddha prescribes. Rather, it motivates me to follow in his foolish footsteps and repeat the foolish mistakes he made. I think my true nature just loves the search itself.

I'm interested in what you mean by the "straight and narrow moderate path"? The eightfold path?

Of my experiences with Buddhism, there is a loose structure, but many, many ways to walk upon that path, and side paths to explore. This is evident in the proliferation of various Buddhist sects through out the world.

This is not to say that you 'should' follow such paths, but simply that you 'may' if you ever choose to.

Accepting, acknowledging that you are following in "his foolish footsteps" and repeating his mistakes is good- but it makes me wonder; what makes you enjoy the nature of searching?

What makes you think enlightenment is the end of seeking?

[yossarian]

I'm interested in what you mean by the "straight and narrow moderate path"? The eightfold path?

I just mean how he tried starving himself and did all these extreme things, but then recommended moderation to his followers. My understanding of the Buddha's teaching is that he recommends moderation in all things.

Accepting, acknowledging that you are following in "his foolish footsteps" and repeating his mistakes is good- but it makes me wonder; what makes you enjoy the nature of searching?

What makes you think enlightenment is the end of seeking?

The seeking does not lead to enlightenment directly, as if at the end of a journey there is a destination. Rather, the seeking is itself delusion, and after a long time in delusion the soul decides it's ready for enlightenment.

The weird thing about "neti neti" is that it's not about seeking or finding, it's actually about not finding. It's a statement to the self that the Infinite cannot be found through seeking.

So the seeker fasts and says to himself "Nope, infinity is not fasting" and then he prays and says, "Infinity is not prayer" and then he meditates and says "Infinity is not meditation"

I observe the waves of desire, and I follow them through naturally, all the while noting that salvation is not found "there".

Constantly noting what is not The One Infinite Creator, I quickly start to recognize what The One Infinite Creator is, which is unutterable. What is The One Infinite Creator? Not "The One Infinite Creator" Not this, not that. Then what? Something else.

I think it may be a sad path because the self is sad to see its delusional hopes dashed over and over. Neti neti is the path of losing all hope but finding what you were looking for in the one place you can't look.

[SomaticDreams]

I'm interested in what you mean by the "straight and narrow moderate path"? The eightfold path?

I just mean how he tried starving himself and did all these extreme things, but then recommended moderation to his followers. My understanding of the Buddha's teaching is that he recommends moderation in all things.

Accepting, acknowledging that you are following in "his foolish footsteps" and repeating his mistakes is good- but it makes me wonder; what makes you enjoy the nature of searching?

What makes you think enlightenment is the end of seeking?

The seeking does not lead to enlightenment directly, as if at the end of a journey there is a destination. Rather, the seeking is itself delusion, and after a long time in delusion the soul decides it's ready for enlightenment.

The weird thing about "neti neti" is that it's not about seeking or finding, it's actually about not finding. It's a statement to the self that the Infinite cannot be found through seeking.

So the seeker fasts and says to himself "Nope, infinity is not fasting" and then he prays and says, "Infinity is not prayer" and then he meditates and says "Infinity is not meditation"

I observe the waves of desire, and I follow them through naturally, all the while noting that salvation is not found "there".

Constantly noting what is not The One Infinite Creator, I quickly start to recognize what The One Infinite Creator is, which is unutterable. What is The One Infinite Creator? Not "The One Infinite Creator" Not this, not that. Then what? Something else.

I think it may be a sad path because the self is sad to see its delusional hopes dashed over and over. Neti neti is the path of losing all hope but finding what you were looking for in the one place you can't look.

Interesting that you state "It's a statement to the self that the Infinite cannot be found through seeking.", but then still decide that the neti neti paradigm is one you wish to follow.

I asked about Yogacara, because it seems as if that school would not only be historically close to the ideal of neti neti, but also lays the path for the next 'step', so to speak.

I don't wish to get too far off topic from the original post- I apologize for the tangents.

It could be appropriate to start a discussion elsewhere on the boards however. As a Buddhist, I find most wanderers here are of (or have most experience/exposure to) an Abrahamic religion, so my perspective on the LOO is radically different.

[yossarian]

I'm interested in what you mean by the "straight and narrow moderate path"? The eightfold path?

I just mean how he tried starving himself and did all these extreme things, but then recommended moderation to his followers. My understanding of the Buddha's teaching is that he recommends moderation in all things.

Accepting, acknowledging that you are following in "his foolish footsteps" and repeating his mistakes is good- but it makes me wonder; what makes you enjoy the nature of searching?

What makes you think enlightenment is the end of seeking?

The seeking does not lead to enlightenment directly, as if at the end of a journey there is a destination. Rather, the seeking is itself delusion, and after a long time in delusion the soul decides it's ready for enlightenment.

The weird thing about "neti neti" is that it's not about seeking or finding, it's actually about not finding. It's a statement to the self that the Infinite cannot be found through seeking.

So the seeker fasts and says to himself "Nope, infinity is not fasting" and then he prays and says, "Infinity is not prayer" and then he meditates and says "Infinity is not meditation"

I observe the waves of desire, and I follow them through naturally, all the while noting that salvation is not found "there".

Constantly noting what is not The One Infinite Creator, I quickly start to recognize what The One Infinite Creator is, which is unutterable. What is The One Infinite Creator? Not "The One Infinite Creator" Not this, not that. Then what? Something else.

I think it may be a sad path because the self is sad to see its delusional hopes dashed over and over. Neti neti is the path of losing all hope but finding what you were looking for in the one place you can't look.

Interesting that you state "It's a statement to the self that the Infinite cannot be found through seeking.", but then still decide that the neti neti paradigm is one you wish to follow.

I asked about Yogacara, because it seems as if that school would not only be historically close to the ideal of neti neti, but also lays the path for the next 'step', so to speak.

I don't wish to get too far off topic from the original post- I apologize for the tangents.

It could be appropriate to start a discussion elsewhere on the boards however. As a Buddhist, I find most wanderers here are of (or have most experience/exposure to) an Abrahamic religion, so my perspective on the LOO is radically different.

Following the paradigm is equivalent to chopping wood and carrying water. I agree it's inherently contradictory, just like how meditation doesn't lead to enlightenment and yet we still must meditate. For me, the neti neti paradigm is more of an expression than a technique or paradigm or path. I don't think it's any better than any other finger pointing at the moon, but I think it is pretty enlightening for some people, especially those entities who enjoy discrimination and discernment.

[drifting pages]

What is your definition of enlightenment ?

[Meerie]

From Etymology online:
Enlightenment
1660s, "action of enlightening," from enlighten + -ment. Only ever used in figurative sense, of spiritual enlightenment, etc. Attested from 1865 as a translation of Ger. Aufklärung, a name for the spirit and system of Continental philosophers in the 18c.

The philosophy of the Enlightenment insisted on man's essential autonomy: man is responsible to himself, to his own rational interests, to his self-development, and, by an inescapable extension, to the welfare of his fellow man. For the philosophes, man was not a sinner, at least not by nature; human nature -- and this argument was subversive, in fact revolutionary, in their day -- is by origin good, or at least neutral. Despite the undeniable power of man's antisocial passions, therefore, the individual may hope for improvement through his own efforts -- through education, participation in politics, activity in behalf of reform, but not through prayer. [Peter Gay, "The Enlightenment"]

of course, the above terminology refers to the philosophical use. However I found very interesting that they place emphasis on "autonomy"
Autonomy means independence. So in a sense, enlightenment frees us from all kinds of bonds and makes us become truly independent, self-sufficient beings?

[yossarian]

The renaissance definition of enlightenment is totally different than the Eastern definition, and arguably far more useful.

European enlightenment is actually something achievable fr geveryone within 5-10 years if they follow a course of moral, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual education. Autonomy in the European paradigm is attained through a liberal education, and someone who has realized their essential freedom (essential freedom meaning inner freedom) to the degree of being individuated is enlightened.

Eastern enlightenment on the other hand is this essentially unobtainable state of completely transcending existence, realizing perfect unity with the universe, and achieving total existential freedom (by which is meant an outer freedom - "freedom to be the moon" for instance).

It's funny because a lot f western occultists a clearly involved in the euro tradition of the liberal education, and so consider themselves enlightenened in that sense fr one, but it's really not clear what they are claiming when they say they're enlightened. Can they "be the moon"? Can they move mountains like Jesus did? Or do they just have autonomy in the human sense? The illuminati claim enlightenment and in their case I think they mean access to secret knowledge.

[SomaticDreams]

Eastern enlightenment on the other hand is this essentially unobtainable state of completely transcending existence, realizing perfect unity with the universe, and achieving total existential freedom (by which is meant an outer freedom - "freedom to be the moon" for instance).

There are those who reincarnate at this time who are enlightened (Bodhisattvas) who come back for the benefit of all other beings towards helping them end suffering and seek enlightenment if they wish. It's not that it's unobtainable- we already are enlightened (edit: This is what, IMHO, Ra means when he said the "Harvest is now"). One just is so used to the 'distortions' as Ra called them, of our thoughts, and ways of reacting to the 3D world. Enlightenment is so simple, so close, pure and easy that it seems *too easy* so we tend to obsfucate, rationalize and fall back into the pitfalls of 3D existence of the mind/body/spirit complex.

All that is required is meditation. Why does meditation seem difficult? Because there is a perception of 'self' that is 'encountering' difficulty. There is no difficulty, no path, no way. Only enlightenment. I know many have had glimpses (Satori) of enlightenment. In fact, you have it everyday. It is not extraordinary, extreme bliss or supernatural. It is the most mundane consciousness you can imagine, but it is pure, clear, and infinitely vast and compassionate.

14.14 Questioner: Would there be any value to the people of this planet now to complete this machine?

Ra: I am Ra. The harvest is now. There is not at this time any reason to include efforts along these distortions toward longevity, but rather to encourage distortions toward seeking the heart of self, for this which resides clearly in the violet-ray energy field will determine the harvesting of each mind/body/spirit complex.

Categories: Objects: Integratron, Harvest

15.14 Questioner: Yesterday you stated that “the harvest is now. There is not at this time any reason to include efforts along this line of longevity, but rather to encourage efforts to seek the heart of self. This which resides clearly in the violet-ray energy field will determine the harvest of the mind/body/spirit complex.” Could you tell us the best way to seek the heart of self?

Ra: I am Ra. We have given you this information in several wordings. However, we can only say the material for your understanding is the self: the mind/body/spirit complex. You have been given information upon healing, as you call this distortion. This information may be seen in a more general context as ways to understand the self. The understanding, experiencing, accepting, and merging of self with self and other-self, and finally with the Creator, is the path to the heart of self. In each infinitesimal part of your self resides the One in all of Its power. Therefore, we can only encourage these lines of contemplation or prayer as a means of subjectively/objectively using or combining various understandings to enhance the seeking process. Without such a method of reversing the analytical process, one could not integrate into unity the many understandings gained in such seeking.

[Aaron]

Both of them are in the human spirit!