Re: Stuart Wilde
Hi feedbaxlow,
I liked reading your thread and i agree with some of it. Just one small request from you?
You wrote "Nexus postulates" [by mistake] and then you quoted khatru's postulate mistaking it for mine. Could you edit khatru's name where mine is?
Many thanks.
To take up a couple of your points... feedbaxlow... You wrote : "there is no attainment".
I believe there is "attainment" . But i believe we are both right. You went on to explain that "you can't become the buddha but you can realise it here and now." True. But "Attainment" is a word that has been used appropriately in the literature in relation to Christhood and Buddhahood. It's all about MANIFESTING Higher Selfhood in the material planes. [as i can see you agree]. Yes we already are Christ and Buddha at inner levels but to manifest that higher Selfhood is to "attain" CONSCIOUS realisation of IT in material planes. That conscious realisation is attained by degrees and so it has been called the 'path of attainment'.
I think the word "attainment" is used in the same way as one would attain/ manifest anything. It must already exist in the mind first. Anyway you did explain yourself well and i'm just presenting a rationale for why some of the past literature uses the word attainment. That rationale for using the word is essentially the same as yours for not using it. Life's like that sometimes. I just worry that sometimes for some people, good spiritual teachings can be too easily rejected if one has rigid views on a particular word without understanding the rationale behind it's use. Not that you don't understand mine or me yours.
Also, you state that "what is" is absolutely perfect. Unless i misunderstand your use of the word "perfect", i think i have to "dissagree" with that. Maybe it's just the words again. Somewhere in the old testament God says :
"My eyes are too too pure to behold iniquity." [Yes the inner God is found in SOME parts of the old testament and the eyes of course are metaphorical]
The Highest level of Selfhood [God] is active in Spiritual Realms and places no attention on ego imperfection in material realms. [although God is immanent at the heart of matter.]
Also, to put it slightly differently, i understand that Higher Selfhood is vibrationally above the conflicts of the lower [vibrational] aspects of self. But the Christ consciousness is a projection of Higher Selfhood [into materiality] which acts as mediator between the perfect Highest Self and the soul trapped in the entanglements of the imperfect lower ego. In order to separate the [perfect] real from the [imperfect] unreal, that spiritual 'mediator' must see and know the difference. That is how the inner spirit acts in order to accomplish the activity of transmuting the lower aspects of self... ie. seeing manifest forms for what they are and literally transmuting them with spiritual fire.
So, in light of all that there really is something to "fix"... unless of course we define "fix" differently. We probably do and it won't surprise me if your explanations/ definitions are as valid as mine. That is, your rationale for not using the word are the same as mine for using it. "Emptiness" is emptying [transmuting] the 4 lower bodies of all vibrations of pseudo- selfhood. The 'self emptying' process leads one to un- alloyed spiritual purity. That pure state of spiritual being is a revelation. As well as revealing spiritual realms, It reveals that there is nothing LEFT [of lower selfhood in material planes] to fix... just the pure soul perfectly reflecting the higher Self into the world of form.
However, during the 'self emptying' process one is in a state of constant flux as integration with the inner Christ is attained by degrees. Each higher realisation of the inner christ reveals deeper levels of subconscious darkness [negative energy patterns] to percieve and surrender for transmutation. We must be willing and able to endure that process [of separating the perfect from the imperfect] in order to "attain" ultimate buddhahood in form.
I don't really know if you dissagree in substance but you'll let me know.
ps. In the "fire the Grid" thread in 'General Discussion" section i took up khatru's arguments more fully in post No 99. Our dissagreement had it's application there too. I suggested to him that his philosophy resembles the 'luciferian' view. He ended by saying that my philosophy is 'satanic'. Lovely.
Pss. I will say also [ to khatru and those who gave him the 'high fives] that i didn't use many metaphors myself, except the wafer thin 'metaphors of the soul as a mirror and the body as a temple. The only other metaphor i used [and explained] was Jesus' own metaphor about the "wineskins". Other than that my description of my own healing was literal. The spiritual fire is not a metaphor.