Thanks again for your insightful reply and kind remarks. May i suggest that from this point we use each reply as new topic. In this way we will prevent the thread to get too long. I will try to reply to your letter quoted here:
Your approach got my special attention because I needed an approach from out of the box, for which you deserve some kind of Noble Price (this is not spoken lightly nor as a joke). This approach shall lead humanity out of its chronically eternal war mind. With such an approach being established there would never have been a Hitler let alone, the 40.000.000 votes he received. Other approaches are like trying to pull yourself off the ground with your hair.>>
(M) Indeed! The Nobel prize is of no significance whatsoever, but I too believe that the insights I share, point in a direction of human enquiry not enetered into before. At least not what I am aware of. War is indeed not possible when the war thought is not identified with via the agency of the thought/attention phenomenon. To wake up from this massive delusory condition, is to wake into the reality of our deeper nature and intelligence.
>>I agree that metaphysics is not that straightforward, but some people are gifted to channel this kind of information e.g. the rishis in ancient times or other people channeling less accessible information out of the akasha field?>>
(M) Yes, such channelling is indeed possible. But of what use is it if it does not act as direct pointers to free us from the dilemma's we create for ourselves through the inappropriate use of our powerful instruments here in the present?
>>What is your opinion about Taoism? The first sentence of the Tao Té Tsjing underlines your attitude against metaphysics about which we should not speak. But for the rest the Taoist approach is just letting yourself flow with the stream of life. >>
(M) The 'stream of life' is always present experience, freed from unnecessary interpretations mistaken for reality. In this manner i agree with the flow of life notion. My work is about communicating how we as humans can get ourselves to allow this to become our living reality.
>>My favorite philosopher Wittgenstein also said: ”that about which you cannot speak you should remain silent”. Furthermore you have the zen approach which is dealing with the “don’t know” attitude (Seung Sahn).>>
(M) My approach happens to reflect many of the traditional approaches to free us from bondage. The 'don't know mind' of Seung Sahn, is a useful gadget to prevent indulgence in patterns of thought projections. But we cannot live with a 'don't know mind'. We need mind which knows, and functions according to its knowledge. As such it has a useful and necessary function. Our problem arises when we start speculating about metaphysical and other notions about life and death and living, and then cannot distinguish between our speculations and actual living experience.
>>In your Nisargadatta discussion you mention the individual’s responsibility but a few lines later you conclude with: “reality alone exists”. This shift in perspective I understand is possible with the help of a spiritual friend which I would ask you to be for me, please help me cross the border?>>
(M) I think I have described these matters quite well in my book. For now it may be important to appreciate the difference between the condition of being in which it is clear that 'reality alone exists', and the work to be done by the individual to allow for this freedom to reveal itself. The work is always from the false sense of self to the reality of not-self, wholeness, and the sense of being.
>> I am very confident that I can ask you anything, that you will always help me because I KNOW that you are a loving and wise person!!>>
(M) Love and wisdom are not properties of the contracted state you and I may refer to as Moller. Love and wisdom are neither yours nor mine. They manifest quite naturally when the contracted self-sense begins to wither through non-use. And these qualities you refer to cannot but make themselves available to others in the appropraite situation.
>> What is your relation with your friendly links?
(M) None whatsoever. They seem just appropriate to be there. They seem to be run by perfectly decent folks, whether i agree with their content or not. If you have others you may want to suggest, we could always add them.
>>Ps: I have arrived at page 72 where I read that our intellect has not been designed to deal with the totality of our human functioning. Is this bold statement based on anything, on intuition?>>
(M) I write from what I believe i observe. Please refer to a chapter in the book called: Intellectualism and Reality Consideration.
Hand in hand,