(sex, creation, maintenance, destruction)
loving or cruel?
I have no wish to sound preachy or boast that I would know anything; just sharing ideas, just probing into my own darkness, fear and arrogance:
A little humor is god, to relax the mental and emotional tightness we live as “me”.
Sometimes our me-investment is very subtle, even hiding behind noble intentions (Golden cage).
“Me” loves to assume strength in so called facts and details… look what “me” knows.
Higher reasoning relaxes “me” by expanding into fun-damental principles, that can be applied to every situation.
Was it Einstein who says:
I only want to know God’s thoughts, the rest are details.
God, not as “another” but as the cause of the phenomena of life; the vast open space of “I don’t know”, Intelligence and Love itself.
Tangent, after spending some time with slowly re-reading the above sentences several times…
I find the bible fascinating when read as a psychological drama;
as if it is only written for “me” to wake up from the dream of separation; to return to Source/Father/Being myself; to see through the veil of thinking and sensing that renders time and space – “this world”.
Reading the Bible as if person, place and thing don’t refer to specific clock-time events, but point “me” to see practical principles of Life/myself.
“Me” might feel offended reading this, because it replaces the familiar sand (so called facts of life) on which we build the house we call “me”, with the rock of “I am”.
There is lots of symbology; not to accumulate dead knowledge, but to playfully – child-like – examine, explore, celebrate; maybe even to lovingly (or willfully) chew/incubate on only one passage or word:
“I am.”
“God is love.”
“I am with you always.”
“Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”
Whatever resonates… not to believe, hope, wish, wait, assume, suffer… but to be open and fresh, for the experience of this here and now, unburdened by the personal “me”.
“Truth is simple, but the seeker is complex…”
“Who do you say I am?”
…flesh (dead concepts) or Spirit (living Presence)?
So Eli told Samuel, “Go and lie down, and if he calls you, say, ‘Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening.’”
Eli, Samuel, LORD… there is only one Source.
Too much thinking about context and meaning can easily lead us astray from experiencing the significance of what is gifted.
LORD is “not another” but “I am” aware of Awareness/Father/Consciousness as me, here and now (all words as concessions)
The instructions are all over the place, but “me” rushes over the words and misses the obvious.
There ‘needs’ to be some playfulness, some love, some humor in order to humbly admit that we overlook the elephant in the room; it requires humility to see how “me” – even with its noble intentions – seems to veil the light of Awareness.
The Bible feels depressing and dark to me, until I am seeing that this darkness and confusion is “me” misunderstood.
“Peace I leave with you,
my peace I give unto you:
not as the world giveth,
give I unto you.
Let not your heart be troubled,
neither let it be afraid.”
“I” refers to Consciousness, not a personal body-mind.
Hopefully this is not too heavy (-;
I have no wish to sound preachy or boast that I would know anything; just sharing ideas, just probing into my own darkness, fear and arrogance.
“The only truth in the manifestation is the impersonal sense I am; the rest are concepts.”
Love,
Holger
Lovely words, pointers, contemplations that reach beyond our limited personal mind and allow gems to surface from the source.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee
They were standing under a tree, each with an arm round the other’s neck, and Alice knew which was which in a moment, because one of them had “Dum” embroidered on his collar, and the other “Dee.” “I suppose they’ve each got “Tweedle” round the back of the collar,” she said to herself.
They stood so still that she quite forgot they were alive, and she was just looking round to see if the word “Tweedle” was written at the back of each collar, when she was startled by a voice coming from the one marked “Dum.”
“If you think we’re waxworks,” he said, “you ought to pay, you know.
Waxworks weren’t made to be looked at for nothing, nohow!”
“Contrariwise,” added the one marked “Dee,” “if you think we’re alive, you ought to speak.”
“I’m sure I’m very sorry,” was all Alice could say; for the words of the old song kept ringing through her head like the ticking of a clock, and she could hardly help saying them out loud:
“Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle;
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.
“Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel;
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel.”
[etc.]
*with gratitude to Lewis Carroll, from Through
the Looking-Glass, and gratitude to my parents,
who first gave me that book, along with Alice in
Wonderland (with the original illustrations by
the amazing John Tenniel.)
Since this post is specifically addressed to me, it seems obvious that I’m expected to respond. My response is that I find all of the teachings listed here to be without flaw. As I consider each one, I find it true. However, I also wonder that Holger addresses them to me, rather than to everyone. Why are they aimed just to me?
I think there is an implication that I need these instructions, that I am not aware of them, or that I could benefit from them.
But why me, and not everyone? Why am I the only one to whom these bits of wisdom (apparently validated by the great sainted Magdi himself) are directed?
Holger has maintained this teaching posture toward me for months now, publicly and especially via email. But he has also acknowledged my good familiarity with nonduality. So why would I need special coaching from Holger? And why, now, in such a public way?
I can only conclude that Holger judges me as faulty in some way, and as needing his teaching. Either he is aware of some lack in me that he is afraid to express directly, using plain words, to this group, a lack about which that he thinks I’m unaware, OR Holger is using me to deal with ego-based discomforts in himself by his constant playing the teacher with me.
I think it is now a good time for Holger to consider these alternatives and communicate a little more truthfully to me and to the group. It is time, Holger, to stop hiding behind dogmatic nonduality statements and start acting like a human being with a heart.
I try to be open and honest about myself in this group, whenever I become the subject of discussion; I’d like to see Holger try for once to do the same. Please find within yourself compassion and respect for another on your path, instead of repeatedly insulting me by treating me as a spiritually resistant beginner.
Dearest David,
Why do you assume that this post is for “you”?
It is about the Bible, in response to a “Song for David”; there are millions of Davids in the world.
Do you reflect on your own words?
Who is this “me” that suffers?
All the things you conveniently ‘blame’ on Holger are your own opportunities to inquire.
I am not “maintaining a teaching posture”… I am just being myself, giving lots of space to David.
You share your deep desire to be free of faulty thinking and misidentification;
please make up your mind, be brave.
“Die before you die” is not ego kindergarten, but facing our root fear, seeing where our investments are.
Love and gratitude,
Holger
Thanks Holger, another j/humble sale of wisdom to happily rummage through. 🤗
Does ANYONE here agree with me that “Thoughts for David” seems to be addressed to me, not King David of the Bible?
Dear David,
Why is there such an eagerness on your side to take things personally?
Let’s assume “Holger” is wrong and “David” is right…
Who cares about that?
David, I respect your body of knowledge and your sincere attempts for clarity.
What do you really want?
Besides the end of suffering…