Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'source'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Courtyard
    • Welcome
    • Daoist Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • The Rabbit Hole
    • Forum and Tech Support
  • The Tent

Found 4 results

  1. In several occult/religious schools of thought there is this idea of evolving or elevating ones consciousness to the level of being able to merge with the ocean of consciousness itself. The idea I can understand; but why to do it I don’t understand. Why would someone do this?
  2. Want To Play?

    There is a game. There's a game being played. Players play it using pieces and boards. Everyone plays it. And even though not everyone actively plays... everyone is involved. Everything is involved. Everything is game. Even non things. Default. The game excluding none, is utterly and wholly, entirely all inclusive. All pieces, all Players, playing or not are part of the game... as is The Board. As to Players and Pieces, there seems some ambiguity. There seems no agreement on whether Pieces are just pieces, or if some pieces are Players, or if Players are Pieces, or if players use pieces to Play... the rules aren't cut in stone you see. But the game is very clear. everything is game. Even the box is part of the game, it's in the rules... i think. The Rules: There is no book of The Rules. Although there are many books about rules. The Rules are entirely implicit, revealed most clearly when broken. Never explicit. And prone to regular shift. It seems. Any rule broken is penalized, but there are other rules for how much penalty, how often and for how long. It also seems there is no agreement among Players as to The Rules about the penalizing of broken rules. One thing is certain though, every broken rule is penalized, (even if only through praise). The Rules are most vividly unveiled only when broken. There are layers of rules and there are even Rules for The Rules. Some of the rules, while seemingly discoverable and understandable to an extent, are rarely conveyable in a manner capable of insighting lasting agreement among all players. It also seems an axiom that whenever some aspect of the rules seems to be explicitized and concretized, explainable by a player, new aspects of the rule become unveiled, often revealing the former rule's irrelevance. All rules seem prone to shift, subtle and radical, without signal or forewarning. As do the pieces... and the players come to think of it. Indeed, a definitive knowable, concrete source for having them explained to one outright, in no uncertain terms, is perhaps the rarest thing imaginable. The one impossible thing? Many people claim to know the rules. Many people will tell you the rules. Some seek to enforce them. Some try to follow them. Some rules i break, others i seem to break upon. Some follow some of them... some of the time. Some by trying and some accidentally find they follow them. Though they are broken in precisely the same manner... Some rely on them, others revile them. Disagreement over them seems one of the few truly unifying principles among Players and Pieces alike. The Board: There is a board for the game. It's huge. vast. As unimaginable as it is palpable. Beautiful, and Terrible. It's beyond reckoning. Literally. And yet, much of the board seems concrete. Players move about the board. Players meet on the board. Pieces are moved by players and by... the board? Players who are pieces, interact with pieces and players and Pieces who are Players... players encountering the rules... playing the game. To some players, the board is also a player. To others, the board is a dull box of rocks... more rules it seems. Clever buggers... into everything. The board is so vast because it's comprised of... other boards. Each piece of the game brings its own board to the game. Each player has a board as well, or is a board... i forget... Bit of a grey area, if players are boards as well as players... Have to check the rules... All boards comprise 'The Board' and 'The Board' shifts with the rules players and pieces. Among all this inherent implicitness, there arises and abides a sense of pattern among the board and playerpieces... in the playing of the game. Players refer to the patterns arising... it seems central to the play. Patterns: comforting, familiar, terrifying, auspicious, awe=inspiring, and all encompassing. Though The Board embodies an ambiguity that abides, no matter how many patterns arise, and agreement flies whenever explicit descriptions of the board are claimed or championed. so... there's a game. are you playing?
  3. Tai Chi and Tango

    Please start at 2:56
  4. Thoughts about God

    So far, in my spiritual journey, I have been exposed to two views about God. As a Christian God is seen as the bearded man in the sky somewhere. God is seperate. God is loving, but can be angry or jealous. God judges, God is affected by the things we do, think or say. God hates sin. God is outside of me, seperate from me. God has some sort of plan for His creation. This idea of God does not evolve. Now, as whatever this is, the Source is seen as both outside of and one with all of creation. The Source is seen as an energy, The Source has no ego. The Source remians unaffected by what I do, say or think. The Source sees the Truth of who I am. The Source has no plans and does not judge. The Source just is. The Source may be loving in essence, but there is uncertainty here, because if love exists then so does the possibility of its opposite. This idea of God, as Source, is still evolving. But this brings up two nearly identical questions. If the Christian idea of God is true, and Heaven is perfect, where did the sin of jealousy come from, that Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels woudl fall? There can be no imperfection in perfection. If God is perfect, if Heaven, His home is perfect, then sin can not exist there. It could no more grow there then a redwood seed could sprout and grow on the moon. If, on the other hand, God is not seperate, if the Source is one with all of creation, how did parts of itself decide that they wanted to be seperate, to become you and I, the things in creation, and experience things from that persepctive? If the Source is in some unchanging state, free of any ego, and therefrore desireless, how did parts of itself desire to experience seperation? It would be the same as if my arm suddendly desired to experience life seperate from my body, and dropped off. This is telling me there is something wrong with both perspectives of God. There are holes in each definition where there should be no holes. What do you think? What is your explanation?