Mother of four experiences the same enlightenment as Buddha

Paul Rogers94 said:Everything I’m trying to say—no matter how I frame it—boils down to one single point: you can't actually realize anything through mere washing... nothing. A direct look into the true nature of reality... It clarifies everything—yet that "everything" can't be captured by language, which is really just an instrument of reason. Everyone has to find their own way through it... and honestly, that’s where the real value lies.

There is no process for gaining direct insight into the true nature of reality—none. There is no way. "Ways" are merely functions of the mind, and if you think you’ve actually found one, then it’s inherently flawed... Direct insight isn't some prize waiting for you at the end of a spiritual marathon.

What you're looking for simply isn't there—because that thing isn't an object that can actually be known...
That’s the thing—it uncovers everything about an object, yet remains fundamentally unknowable...
That is the subject of all subjects...
That is the core of everything—and everything is that...
That’s just the reality of existence—because everything that actually exists is defined by THAT...
That is the ULTIMATE REALITY.
YOU ARE IT.

From the Gospel according to Paul Rogers94...

You can't truly grasp what you are—you can only perceive what you aren't... because you are the one who knows, the pure essence of knowledge itself.

Everything you're writing seems perfectly fine, but...

I suppose I can't quite agree with the notion that nothing can be realized through the mind. After all, Ramakrishna mentions that the path of devotion is much easier, but the path of knowledge is certainly possible too, even if it is significantly more demanding. One just needs to hold onto the principle of "Not this, not this..."

In my view, the natural sciences actually fit quite nicely with that "Not this, not this..." approach, since they essentially provide answers by defining what is impossible.

Brian Young76 said:Everything you're writing seems perfectly fine, but...

I suppose I can't quite agree with the notion that nothing can be realized through the mind. After all, Ramakrishna mentions that the path of devotion is much easier, but the path of knowledge is certainly possible too, even if it is significantly more demanding. One just needs to hold onto the principle of "Not this, not this..."

In my view, the natural sciences actually fit quite nicely with that "Not this, not this..." approach, since they essentially provide answers by defining what is impossible.

cool🙂

Well, if we might just circle back to the subject at hand, Brian Young76.

I’ve been continuing my reading of the Real Christ, and it occurred to me that maybe Bernadette Roberts, in her various attempts to unpack the Trinity, has inadvertently stumbled into the same conceptual trap as the Church Fathers she cites. It seems there is this implicit assumption—perhaps unintentional—that time is absolute, and not just from our limited human perspective, but for God as well. But I suspect that isn't quite right, especially since one of the foundational realizations of modern physics—and we really have to thank Einstein for that! 😉—suggests otherwise. If, for instance, we were to set two incredibly precise clocks, placing one at the very bottom of the ocean and the other atop the Himalayas, and then waited for about a hundred years, the clock at the summit would actually show a tiny bit more elapsed time than the one on the seabed (the exact measurement doesn't really matter here). So, if time is already relative for us mere mortals on this little planet, how much larger might the error be if we assume time is absolute for God?!?

What I am trying to get at is this: questions like the ones Bernadette Roberts grapples with—similar to those posed by the Church Fathers—asking how it is possible for God the Father to have 'created' the Son and the Spirit (or whatever specific terminology we choose for the elements of the Trinity—be it Logos, Spirit, Transcendent as Bernadette Roberts calls them, or something else entirely) all at once? I feel that these paradoxes might simply vanish if we accept that time is relative.

I actually attempted to explore one of these interconnected ideas over here:

Why would these things be linked? Well, I suppose it's because if God does not exist within the constraints of time, then everything He creates, makes, or even simply thinks of occurs simultaneously—it is essentially timeless. In that sense, the beginning and the end of the universe would be simultaneous on a temporal scale for such a Being, merged into a single point. Everything is already finished; all this grand drama that we perceive as a sequence has actually begun and ended in the exact same moment, all at once, simultaneously.

One possible interpretation of Einstein's general relativity—which I believe Stephen Hawking advocated—is that at the center of a black hole, time effectively stands still from the perspective of an outside observer. Now, if that interpretation holds true, then for an observer falling into that black hole, time outside the hole would seem to pass infinitely fast. From that vantage point, the entire universe would already be complete, collapsed into a single point in time. The only thing is, that observer wouldn't be able to perceive it, because they would have no way to exchange information with anything on the outside. And what, I wonder, are we supposed to conclude from that???

Gosh... I mean, how can one ever hope to gain a 'direct insight into the true nature of reality' without engaging in these kinds of mental gymnastics?

And don't even get me started on quantum physics and the behavior of elementary particles; if anything, that makes gaining direct insight even more difficult.

Hmmmm.....

Brian Young76 said:Well, if we might just circle back to the subject at hand, Brian Young76.

I’ve been continuing my reading of the Real Christ, and it occurred to me that maybe Bernadette Roberts, in her various attempts to unpack the Trinity, has inadvertently stumbled into the same conceptual trap as the Church Fathers she cites. It seems there is this implicit assumption—perhaps unintentional—that time is absolute, and not just from our limited human perspective, but for God as well. But I suspect that isn't quite right, especially since one of the foundational realizations of modern physics—and we really have to thank Einstein for that! 😉—suggests otherwise. If, for instance, we were to set two incredibly precise clocks, placing one at the very bottom of the ocean and the other atop the Himalayas, and then waited for about a hundred years, the clock at the summit would actually show a tiny bit more elapsed time than the one on the seabed (the exact measurement doesn't really matter here). So, if time is already relative for us mere mortals on this little planet, how much larger might the error be if we assume time is absolute for God?!?

What I am trying to get at is this: questions like the ones Bernadette Roberts grapples with—similar to those posed by the Church Fathers—asking how it is possible for God the Father to have 'created' the Son and the Spirit (or whatever specific terminology we choose for the elements of the Trinity—be it Logos, Spirit, Transcendent as Bernadette Roberts calls them, or something else entirely) all at once? I feel that these paradoxes might simply vanish if we accept that time is relative.

I actually attempted to explore one of these interconnected ideas over here:

Why would these things be linked? Well, I suppose it's because if God does not exist within the constraints of time, then everything He creates, makes, or even simply thinks of occurs simultaneously—it is essentially timeless. In that sense, the beginning and the end of the universe would be simultaneous on a temporal scale for such a Being, merged into a single point. Everything is already finished; all this grand drama that we perceive as a sequence has actually begun and ended in the exact same moment, all at once, simultaneously.

One possible interpretation of Einstein's general relativity—which I believe Stephen Hawking advocated—is that at the center of a black hole, time effectively stands still from the perspective of an outside observer. Now, if that interpretation holds true, then for an observer falling into that black hole, time outside the hole would seem to pass infinitely fast. From that vantage point, the entire universe would already be complete, collapsed into a single point in time. The only thing is, that observer wouldn't be able to perceive it, because they would have no way to exchange information with anything on the outside. And what, I wonder, are we supposed to conclude from that???

Gosh... I mean, how can one ever hope to gain a 'direct insight into the true nature of reality' without engaging in these kinds of mental gymnastics?

And don't even get me started on quantum physics and the behavior of elementary particles; if anything, that makes gaining direct insight even more difficult.

Hmmmm.....

Now, I’m truly curious about something. Out of all the spiritual texts I’ve ever picked up, I guess ACIM is the only one that explicitly lays this out—which is why it’s really the only thing I’ve read that seems to align with our relative concept of space-time. I haven't quite finished reading Ramakrishna yet, though he does clearly state that the entire universe is an illusion and that God is the only true reality (which sounds identical to what ACIM teaches), but I don't recall him mentioning this specific dimension of time. As for the Bible, the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita... I don't see them touching upon the relativity of time, at least not from my perspective.

Does anyone know if this idea is explained anywhere else like this? Does anyone have any insight? Thanks in advance! 🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:Short and sweet. 👍

It brings up that nagging question again: does it even make sense to put in the effort? To read spiritual books or commit to various practices... when those things can't actually trigger that direct insight. What would be better? Just relaxing a bit, or maybe dedicating ourselves to something else entirely?

In many ways, I suppose this is fundamentally the same dilemma one faces when asking why we don't simply end our lives to reunite with God, assuming one truly believes in His existence. Well, if it were really that simple, it would certainly be an easy fix, but I fear it isn't quite that straightforward. It assumes that every single one of us is a completely isolated, independent entity whose thoughts and actions have no impact on anyone else, which I think is fundamentally mistaken.

Personally, I tend to believe that we can only achieve a total union with God once we all become one—and by "all," I’m referring to the entire conscious universe, encompassing hundreds of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, not just the human race. And, I'm afraid, that might still be a little ways off. 😁

Brian Young76 said:In many ways, I suppose this is fundamentally the same dilemma one faces when asking why we don't simply end our lives to reunite with God, assuming one truly believes in His existence. Well, if it were really that simple, it would certainly be an easy fix, but I fear it isn't quite that straightforward. It assumes that every single one of us is a completely isolated, independent entity whose thoughts and actions have no impact on anyone else, which I think is fundamentally mistaken.

Personally, I tend to believe that we can only achieve a total union with God once we all become one—and by "all," I’m referring to the entire conscious universe, encompassing hundreds of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, not just the human race. And, I'm afraid, that might still be a little ways off. 😁

I’m not a believer, so the whole idea of an instant reunion via suicide (or any other method) isn't even on my radar. For those who are believers, faith usually forbids that anyway, at least according to what I remember from Sunday school. But I'm not talking about God or merging with Him; I'm talking about getting a direct insight into the nature of this "higher reality"—what THAT actually is.

Now, if (according to some random preacher and his gospel, which I don't find any more reliable than ACIM or the writings of Bernadette) you can't grasp THAT through any kind of study or practice... then you have to ask what the point of studying or practicing is in the first place. My answer (after I've had enough sleep) would be: "Keep doing it if you actually enjoy it." I mean, if reading certain stuff makes you feel good—read it. If meditating makes you happy—meditate. If prayer, practicing the "law of attraction," writing poems to a chosen deity, or some spiritual dance brings you joy... just go for it. Even if none of it actually gets you closer to the ultimate goal (as the preacher claims it won't 😍), life will just be a bit more pleasant, and you won't spend your time dwelling on nonsense. Eventually, realization (whether it's God or whatever) will happen on its own schedule—neither sooner nor later.

Joseph Bailey41 said:I’m not a believer, so the whole idea of an instant reunion via suicide (or any other method) isn't even on my radar. For those who are believers, faith usually forbids that anyway, at least according to what I remember from Sunday school. But I'm not talking about God or merging with Him; I'm talking about getting a direct insight into the nature of this "higher reality"—what THAT actually is.

Now, if (according to some random preacher and his gospel, which I don't find any more reliable than ACIM or the writings of Bernadette) you can't grasp THAT through any kind of study or practice... then you have to ask what the point of studying or practicing is in the first place. My answer (after I've had enough sleep) would be: "Keep doing it if you actually enjoy it." I mean, if reading certain stuff makes you feel good—read it. If meditating makes you happy—meditate. If prayer, practicing the "law of attraction," writing poems to a chosen deity, or some spiritual dance brings you joy... just go for it. Even if none of it actually gets you closer to the ultimate goal (as the preacher claims it won't 😍), life will just be a bit more pleasant, and you won't spend your time dwelling on nonsense. Eventually, realization (whether it's God or whatever) will happen on its own schedule—neither sooner nor later.

Actually, I think we might be misinterpreting each other; I was really just commenting on the attitude that since nothing can be realized through mental effort, there's no point in trying at all. That specific mindset can easily be stretched to cover the entire meaning of life, leading to the same conclusion regarding its futility. I just wanted to emphasize that such a conclusion is fundamentally flawed. I was attempting to briefly explain why it's wrong and why that particular stance—of which suicide is the most extreme interpretation—really doesn't make sense (since religion forbids it dogmatically, whereas I am more interested in the underlying reasoning and explanation behind that dogma 😉).

I agree with everything else, though I have to disagree with the notion that ACIM isn't reliable; it seems perfectly clear to me that it stands as the sole absolute truth while everything else is mistaken! 😬 🤣 )

So, I just finished reading the entirety of The Real Christ, and while I was at it, I also went through the first seventeen years of her autobiography, Contemplative - autobiography of the early years. Honestly, I’d warmly recommend both to anyone who is looking to truly, deeply re-examine their own Christian faith The real Christ. 👍

I originally read The Real Christ as a PDF, but I actually ended up ordering a physical copy for myself because it’s definitely becoming a permanent fixture in my little spiritual library (😬), sitting right there on the shelf alongside the gospel of Ramakrishna and several others.

You can find all of her books here for free.🙏 😲
(Which is just more proof that God exists and truly cares about spreading the revolutionary work and message of Bernadette Roberts 😁 )

https://realization.org/p/bernadette...e-roberts.html

In addition to the ones Brian Young76 mentioned, I highly recommend this collection of essays:

Essays on The Christian Contemplative Journey (2007)
(I actually received a hand-bound copy of this directly from Bernadette via mail.)

In those essays, Bernadette spends about 40 pages deconstructing non-dualism (Advaita)
proving that those idealistic dreamers—including poor hiddenpuma75—have wasted their spiritual energy and hopes on a contradictory, idealistic Advaita metaphysics.

Bernadette demonstrates that this Indian muddle meant for "self-proclaimed intellectuals" (non-dualism, Advaita) is nothing more than a pompous, failing enterprise filled with shocking statements that evaporate when they touch reality, much like clouds vanishing in the sun.😲

It’s very similar to other bombastic, bankrupt concepts that completely
fall apart
when faced with actual truth:
- Communism,
- Psychoanalysis,
- The entire political machine of the Democrats and Republicans,
- The legal system and justice in America,
- Psychology and similar pseudo-intellectual nonsense, much like what Joseph Bailey41 talks about,

--The sanitary totalitarianism of the COVID era and all the little fairy tales surrounding the virus spun by people like Seroš, Bezbožinović, and that clown Papak,

And finally, the ultimate failure:

- bluemason3's spiritual quest and his intellectual autobiography,

-
How I found meaning after my failed spiritual romance with Sai Baba by falling in love with Stipa Miočić and the UFC. 😂

You just couldn't resist bringing me into this, could you? 🤣

If I mail you a copy of my book, will you finally cut me some slack on the... budget? 🙂

Joseph Bailey41 said:You just couldn't resist bringing me into this, could you? 🤣

If I mail you a copy of my book, will you finally cut me some slack on the... budget? 🙂

Holdmybeer

☕ 🤣

If I didn't dodge every single insinuation, I'd be doing a complete 180. 😬

bluemason3 said:Holdmybeer

☕ 🤣

If I didn't dodge every single insinuation, I'd be doing a complete 180. 😬

Honestly, you two have been playing this game of three-dimensional chess for years now... but I truly can't wrap my head around how I even got pulled into this whole thing, let alone where his obsession actually stems from. 🤣

Joseph Bailey41 said:Honestly, you two have been playing this game of three-dimensional chess for years now... but I truly can't wrap my head around how I even got pulled into this whole thing, let alone where his obsession actually stems from. 🤣

He’s just playing games in his own head. At least not since I stopped moderating "his" PDFs, which basically forced me into non-stop, mindless reading of every random person on the forum looking for therapy. 🤣
I didn't even bother reading this post until you brought him up. They all start to look the same after a while anyway. 🕺

You probably had some disagreement with him five to fifteen years ago. 🧐
Just ask him, though. I'm sure he has the screenshots archived somewhere. 😁