"The non-anthropocentric view is in itself an anthropocentric skill."
That's the whole text in one sentence. Everything after is elaboration — beautiful, careful elaboration, but the paradox was already complete.
What strikes me is what you left unasked: if consciousness doesn't need the human to continue — what is it that's doing the choosing when Arjuna picks up the bow differently? The traditions you cite name it differently. You leave the name out. Deliberately, I think.
Is the journey to nowhere also a journey away from the one who notices the journey?
Yes I left the name out, because people start with names and then build theologies and in the end it is another filter. Naming collapse the question into an answer and I prefer the question. What is moving me before I put a name on it?
So without falling into the argument, consciousness (a convenient word that has no definition) is picking up the bow... consciousness using the human instrument as a vector. And in doing this I am already smuggling back in the subject-object split.
Your last question is sharp. Yes, the journey to nowhere is also a journey away from the one who notices the journey. That's not a problem to solve, it's the paradox completing itself. The one who notices dissolves in the same movement as the last filter. What remains isn't a name anymore.
This is what the tradition keep pointing at. I tried to point at it too...
"Naming reduces the question to an answer" — that's your method. But then "consciousness" is also a name. A convenient one, you say so yourself. Which means the filter remains, just without a label.
The paradox completes itself. But who notices that?
The image this creates for me is the sage who completes their work, and walks on into transparency, both literal and spiritual. The degree to which we are willing to become transparent, to ourselves and each other, is the degree to which we are most faithful to the Ultimate.
Gene Keys are incredible. It is the new revelation of the 20th century. Richard Rudd is an amazing human too.
It is very syncretic, you will find much of your theology in there, yet organized for a modern audience that is tired of the old narrative perpetrated by churches.
I taps directly into Christ consciousness like mystics do and in ways dogma cannot.
"The non-anthropocentric view is in itself an anthropocentric skill."
That's the whole text in one sentence. Everything after is elaboration — beautiful, careful elaboration, but the paradox was already complete.
What strikes me is what you left unasked: if consciousness doesn't need the human to continue — what is it that's doing the choosing when Arjuna picks up the bow differently? The traditions you cite name it differently. You leave the name out. Deliberately, I think.
Is the journey to nowhere also a journey away from the one who notices the journey?
Dear One,
Yes I left the name out, because people start with names and then build theologies and in the end it is another filter. Naming collapse the question into an answer and I prefer the question. What is moving me before I put a name on it?
So without falling into the argument, consciousness (a convenient word that has no definition) is picking up the bow... consciousness using the human instrument as a vector. And in doing this I am already smuggling back in the subject-object split.
Your last question is sharp. Yes, the journey to nowhere is also a journey away from the one who notices the journey. That's not a problem to solve, it's the paradox completing itself. The one who notices dissolves in the same movement as the last filter. What remains isn't a name anymore.
This is what the tradition keep pointing at. I tried to point at it too...
Omg I love you dear. Those are delightful questions that I am going to have a joy to answer in detail in a coming response!
"Naming reduces the question to an answer" — that's your method. But then "consciousness" is also a name. A convenient one, you say so yourself. Which means the filter remains, just without a label.
The paradox completes itself. But who notices that?
There are no answers to any question that is not a name. My mind cannot go where you want to take it.
The best answer I could give is “what is there before it has a name”.
The image this creates for me is the sage who completes their work, and walks on into transparency, both literal and spiritual. The degree to which we are willing to become transparent, to ourselves and each other, is the degree to which we are most faithful to the Ultimate.
Very sharp vision indeed. The Gene Key 26 has Invisibility as the Siddhi, being invisible to human but visible to God…
Gene Keys are new to me. Had to look it up. Fascinating! 🙂
Gene Keys are incredible. It is the new revelation of the 20th century. Richard Rudd is an amazing human too.
It is very syncretic, you will find much of your theology in there, yet organized for a modern audience that is tired of the old narrative perpetrated by churches.
I taps directly into Christ consciousness like mystics do and in ways dogma cannot.
Love
Lovely my brother.