The answer....dedicated to those who seek one.

[TheGreenHornet]

The Answer
A Rose, in tatters on the garden path,
Cried out to God and murmured 'gainst His Wrath,
Because a sudden wind at twilight's hush
Had snapped her stem alone of all the bush.
And God, Who hears both sun-dried dust and sun,
Had pity, whispering to that luckless one,
"Sister, in that thou sayest We did not well --
What voices heardst thou when thy petals fell?"
And the Rose answered, "In that evil hour
A voice said, `Father, wherefore falls the flower?
For lo, the very gossamers are still.'
And a voice answered, `Son, by Allah's will!'"

Then softly as a rain-mist on the sward,
Came to the Rose the Answer of the Lord:
"Sister, before We smote the Dark in twain,
Ere yet the stars saw one another plain,
Time, Tide, and Space, We bound unto the task
That thou shouldst fall, and such an one should ask."
Whereat the withered flower, all content,
Died as they die whose days are innocent;
While he who questioned why the flower fell
Caught hold of God and saved his soul from Hell.

............Rudyard Kipling

 

[HaShev]

I thought the answer was "THE PRICE OF ONIONS",
because the most stated question in all the universe of that which has no comparison in importance:
"What does that have to do with THE PRICE OF ONIONS?"

 

[there4eyeM]

Fortunately for roses, dogs and every other living thing, there is no duality. There is no 'God' and not 'God'. There is no death or even life. There is simply the only time that ever existed or ever could, now.
Humans suffer from their imposition on the universe of 'good' and 'evil', their incapacity to see beyond this facile perceptual trap. We see contrast and opposites and take them for absolutes, when they are merely aspects of how the mind functions. 'Seeing' in this fashion has limited application for navigating on the surface of our planet, for example. The danger is in taking it for more than it is, illusion.
For 'God' to truly be 'God', 'God' must be one. To be absorbed into 'God' is to be free of duality, not condemned to it.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Fortunately for roses, dogs and every other living thing, there is no duality. There is no 'God' and not 'God'. There is no death or even life. There is simply the only time that ever existed or ever could, now.
Humans suffer from their imposition on the universe of 'good' and 'evil', their incapacity to see beyond this facile perceptual trap. We see contrast and opposites and take them for absolutes, when they are merely aspects of how the mind functions. 'Seeing' in this fashion has limited application for navigating on the surface of our planet, for example. The danger is in taking it for more than it is, illusion.
For 'God' to truly be 'God', 'God' must be one. To be absorbed into 'God' is to be free of duality, not condemned to it.

If the universe be comprised of heads and tails, then God is the coin. This highlights both the principle of polarity, and the eternal oneness of all-that-is, within which all apparent dualism is experienced.

But as you noted, there is a “limited application” for thinking in terms that match our microscopic circumstance, i.e. physical existence. Truth and falsehood, or Good and Evil, is a distinction worth making; though always against the unified backdrop of which it is an expression.

I define faith as the acceptance of the “appropriateness” of the universe. I don’t take your comment to mean, “do away with dualistic thought as an inappropriate illusion” but rather “recognize dualism as illusion, and embrace it from that perspective.” Is this an accurate evaluation?

The universe has existence (in some form) and motion. This motion is guided by law, and thus some manner of “purpose” is implied; some specific direction. The acorn “strives” to become a tree. Man has free will, so bringing his thoughts and subsequent actions into alignment with “the will of creation” seems prudent. If it were not so, then all would be utterly meaningless. Choice would exist with no purpose, no direction. This seems unlikely since intelligent consciousness, as a causal factor, implies some manner of intent. Have you come to a similar conclusion?

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The Answer
A Rose, in tatters on the garden path,
Cried out to God and murmured 'gainst His Wrath,
Because a sudden wind at twilight's hush
Had snapped her stem alone of all the bush.
And God, Who hears both sun-dried dust and sun,
Had pity, whispering to that luckless one,
"Sister, in that thou sayest We did not well --
What voices heardst thou when thy petals fell?"
And the Rose answered, "In that evil hour
A voice said, `Father, wherefore falls the flower?
For lo, the very gossamers are still.'
And a voice answered, `Son, by Allah's will!'"

Then softly as a rain-mist on the sward,
Came to the Rose the Answer of the Lord:
"Sister, before We smote the Dark in twain,
Ere yet the stars saw one another plain,
Time, Tide, and Space, We bound unto the task
That thou shouldst fall, and such an one should ask."
Whereat the withered flower, all content,
Died as they die whose days are innocent;
While he who questioned why the flower fell
Caught hold of God and saved his soul from Hell.

............Rudyard Kipling

Why do you think the man who questioned found God? By the questioning itself? A sort of “seek and ye shall find” affair?

 

[there4eyeM]

“recognize dualism as illusion, and embrace it from that perspective.”
Yes. Then, if possible, recognize embracing, recognition, and all else as also illusion.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

“recognize dualism as illusion, and embrace it from that perspective.”
Yes. Then, if possible, recognize embracing, recognition, and all else as also illusion.

Thank you. I understand this “reducing down” methodology as a means by which to transition from a state of complete illusion emersion to an awareness of awareness itself. A less crude way of saying this would be just dropping everything and being what’s there.

But when you get back in the pool, how are your political views informed by this? I mean, why USMB? How do you approach the issues commonly discussed here?

 

[there4eyeM]

“recognize dualism as illusion, and embrace it from that perspective.”
Yes. Then, if possible, recognize embracing, recognition, and all else as also illusion.

Thank you. I understand this “reducing down” methodology as a means by which to transition from a state of complete illusion emersion to an awareness of awareness itself. A less crude way of saying this would be just dropping everything and being what’s there.

But when you get back in the pool, how are your political views informed by this? I mean, why USMB? How do you approach the issues commonly discussed here?

It is merely a modest effort to communicate a bit of sense to the fringe that can share it. It is an outlet, the occasion to put ideas out there and discover if they resonate. After all, we could say it is a bit silly.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

“recognize dualism as illusion, and embrace it from that perspective.”
Yes. Then, if possible, recognize embracing, recognition, and all else as also illusion.

Thank you. I understand this “reducing down” methodology as a means by which to transition from a state of complete illusion emersion to an awareness of awareness itself. A less crude way of saying this would be just dropping everything and being what’s there.

But when you get back in the pool, how are your political views informed by this? I mean, why USMB? How do you approach the issues commonly discussed here?

It is merely a modest effort to communicate a bit of sense to the fringe that can share it. It is an outlet, the occasion to put ideas out there and discover if they resonate. After all, we could say it is a bit silly.

Absolutely. That's good work. I struggled quite a bit with the contradiction between man's desire to communicate, to relate, and the seeming pointlessness of that endeavor. I've since returned to an embracing of worldly affairs and engaged social discourse from a new perspective. I perceive a certain intent of spirit, and feel compelled to encourage recognition of it. On these boards, that expresses as (anti) political commentary, and I don't usually go too much deeper than that. I speak of how freedom is man's inherent nature, and how morality is the blueprint for successful human interaction.

When I was a kid, my father had a little jar of mercury. I used to spill it out in a dish and was fascinated by how separate drops would merge when in close proximity (is this healthy? I'm not sure kids should be playing with mercury Hahaha To be fair, he did tell me not to eat it). My model for human experience is one "spirit" playing at being separate, and the human desire to relate is rooted in the recognition of this ultimate unity. Truth is the center beacon, and if we can move toward this hub - regardless of which spoke we're travelling down, we will ultimately unite and fulfill spirit's yearning by more closely mirroring its true nature while in the physical world. This mirroring seems, to me, to be the goal of the game.

This is all a subjective, simplified, mental construct, but it's what I've come up with to satisfy "man's search for meaning."

 

[there4eyeM]

“recognize dualism as illusion, and embrace it from that perspective.”
Yes. Then, if possible, recognize embracing, recognition, and all else as also illusion.

Thank you. I understand this “reducing down” methodology as a means by which to transition from a state of complete illusion emersion to an awareness of awareness itself. A less crude way of saying this would be just dropping everything and being what’s there.

But when you get back in the pool, how are your political views informed by this? I mean, why USMB? How do you approach the issues commonly discussed here?

It is merely a modest effort to communicate a bit of sense to the fringe that can share it. It is an outlet, the occasion to put ideas out there and discover if they resonate. After all, we could say it is a bit silly.

Absolutely. That's good work. I struggled quite a bit with the contradiction between man's desire to communicate, to relate, and the seeming pointlessness of that endeavor. I've since returned to an embracing of worldly affairs and engaged social discourse from a new perspective. I perceive a certain intent of spirit, and feel compelled to encourage recognition of it. On these boards, that expresses as (anti) political commentary, and I don't usually go too much deeper than that. I speak of how freedom is man's inherent nature, and how morality is the blueprint for successful human interaction.

When I was a kid, my father had a little jar of mercury. I used to spill it out in a dish and was fascinated by how separate drops would merge when in close proximity (is this healthy? I'm not sure kids should be playing with mercury Hahaha To be fair, he did tell me not to eat it). My model for human experience is one "spirit" playing at being separate, and the human desire to relate is rooted in the recognition of this ultimate unity. Truth is the center beacon, and if we can move toward this hub - regardless of which spoke we're travelling down, we will ultimately unite and fulfill spirit's yearning by more closely mirroring its true nature while in the physical world. This mirroring seems, to me, to be the goal of the game.

This is all a subjective, simplified, mental construct, but it's what I've come up with to satisfy "man's search for meaning."

A note of clarification; when I said "silly", I meant it is perhaps silly of me to dabble that way. It is an amusement of sorts. I avoid personal insult and don't respond to it, or very seldom and in a very controlled way.
Freedom is a choice humans have that other animals really don't. What we witness in the greater part of humanity, however, is not much of a genuine exercise of that potential. On that ground, to say it is inherent human nature may be more than I would do. Existentially, humans make a choice when they believe. Compassionate observation, however, forces us to concede that an enormous percentage of our fellows do not experience 'choice' in much of what they accept as religious and political ideas. It is difficult to blame them for saying they were born a religion, an ideology, etc. It is not flattering to them, even condescending, perhaps, but humans are so fallible that we can love them and have almost contempt at the same time. To see, for example, that a soldier who follows orders to shoot civilians is both a victim himself and a criminal at the same time is not given to all. And do we choose to give more weight to one or the other sentiment? What do we do to this 'spirit' of freedom if we allow for ignoring a person's refusal to exercise it?
We are on the brink of unimaginable discoveries about the nature of the universe and, consequently, existence. This could revolutionize thinking on the popular scale, though it will not add to or subtract from what the truly great minds have told us already. Coinciding with this is the equally imminent possibility of totally destroying the capacity of earth to support human life. We can be saved or destroyed by our knowledge very soon. It can be said that all roads lead to enlightenment. Looked at the other way, they can also lead from it. If there is a 'spirit' part to existence, let us hope we can unite with it fully.