1.844
Bearbeitungen
Barry, Freedom On The Beach: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen
Barry, Freedom On The Beach (Quelltext anzeigen)
Version vom 25. April 2022, 08:16 Uhr
, vor 2 Jahrenkeine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung
KKeine Bearbeitungszusammenfassung |
|||
Zeile 3.327:
<!-- Blauer Kasten Ende Englisch -->
</div>
=== Englisch: (Freedom On The Beach, Tape 4, Seite B) ===
<!-- Blauer Kasten Beginn Englisch -->
<div style="margin:5px 0px 5px 5px; border:2px solid #dfdfdf; padding:0.3em 1em 0.7em 1em; background-color:#E0FFFF;">
(Inaudible question)
Freedom: Right. And if you do it that way you prevent
yourself from the recipient of just the problem. You don’t take on the
problem.
Jan: Since the words are not even separate from who
You Are, and if you become the likeness of the words, and there is no
separation between yourSelf and the words, and
you have that whole content of meaning that’s alive, then that lifts you.
Freedom: That’s what lifts you. Right. Because you
see, the words and the meaning are not two separate things anymore than
a song is separated from the music. If you learn… it’s like being on
the stage…
you can learn all of your lines before you go to the
first rehearsal and then when they block the set for you, and you find
yourself at this certain place, you’ve forgotten your lines. But once
you wait and learn your lines after the blocking has been done, it’s just
like learning a song; you learn the music and the words simultaneously.
You learn it as one thing. I can remember preparing for a recital at the
New England Conservatory of Music, and I was going to play this Mozart
Rondo in D, and I got to a place and I went blank. I said to my teacher,
“I know exactly what it is; it’s right up on the top of the left hand
page.” She said, “Forget that. That won’t help you in a concert. Don’t
memorize it on the page; memorize it on the keyboard. That’s where you’ll
be when this happens.” And I find that to be very true in theater. You
memorize your lines, because this is what you are saying at a certain
place where you are, at a certain position where you are. And if you learn
it that way, it doesn’t escape you when you’re there. If you should go
up, you know where you are, then the words come. You see it as one unit,
one unity, one unified thing.
Tirza: Isn’t that what it says in John 1, “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Words was with God and the Word was God.”
Freedom: Exactly. And the Word Is God. The Word is
never something, as I left off in yesterday’s meeting about “He that sent
me hath not left me alone.” Consciousness and Its Idea Is One. They are
not separate. You cannot get an Idea out of its Consciousness. I hate
using that terminology because “When you think of Ideas in Mind, avoid
thinking of seeds in a watermelon.” (The author of this statement is quoted
by Freedom but was inaudible-Arthur Corey?)
It’s so easy to think of it as something stuffed inside
something else.
Consciousness, in the process of Self-Cognition, that’s
Idea. I have an Idea of What I Am, and that’s what appears to me to be
me.
Vern: How do you find a stance between two apparently
opposing platitudes? On the one hand, we have the saying, “God helps those
who help themselves.” On the other hand, we have, “Let go and let God.”
Freedom: That is why I wrote this Chapter in the new
book, which I must make clear to somebody who asked about this, “Is this
just a reprint of an old book?” I said, “No. Three chapters of this were
once printed in booklets, and the intention was to get them into a more
permanent form. So, I wrote four new things that have not been written
before to make Seven Salient Subjects.” I got off my track. Oh, yes, in
the chapter called “Mind Over Chatter,” I know it was the subject of a
lecture I gave in San Francisco, but I had no notes on it, and I had no
idea in the world what I said. So I wrote out what was current with me
on that Idea of Mind over chatter.
Because there is so much in the way of repeated platitudes
used as a mantra to uplift you: “Let go and let God,” which implies there
is somebody outside of me that’s going to do this and do it better than
I could. So I must get myself out of the way. That’s just as true as it
can be if your sense of self is person. That does have to yield. It has
to get out of the way. And it will never drop by itself. I have to drop
it, because I’m the only one who thought of myself as a person.
So I Consciousness must drop that sense. I let go
and let that which I really Am come through. But I think that answer to
that is better said in “Mind Over Chatter.” (Inaudible question) The Absolute
and the explanatory are two ways of looking at the same thing. Where is
“Let go and let God?” Well, I thought it would be so simple to find it,
I really ought to read it. Here you are: “Too often the time worn cliché
“Let go and let God” encourages the neophyte to do nothing and leave the
solution of a problem to the inexplicable magic workings of the as yet
unknown God. A far safer admonition would be to let go of a personal sense
of your Self and permit your Divine Actual Nature to express its Features
Consciously as what you are feeling and doing.” Now what was the opposite
platitude that you said?
Vern: God helps those who help themselves.
Freedom: Yeah, God helps those who help themselves.
Well, traced to it logical conclusion, you would have to see that the
One who understands his “Self” Is Love. Therefore, there is where the
help is is in finding the Self of You to Be God/Cause/Causation. Call
it what you will. Origin.
Vern: We grew up in a household that was very rigidly
authoritarian. Get out there and make it happen, then God will add His
emphasis to it because you did this.
Freedom: Yeah. You see the fallacy of that now, don’t
you?
Vern: In experience, it wasn’t that way. (Inaudible-referring
to experience in the military)
Freedom: Now that you know the difference between
letting go and letting God, and rushing out trying to do it for yourself
so God will give you a boost. You see that neither platitude has any basic
Truth.
(Wind so strong Freedom moves away from recorder to
talk to someone directly-question inaudible)
Freedom: It’s to obliterate the sense of yourself
as a person, that God helps those. Because when your sense of yourself
as person has been overcome, you realize the only one there… It’s just
like when it’s told in the “Transfiguration” at the point when everything
in view is transfigured, it says, “They see no man save Jesus only.” There
is nothing else there except the One Who Is Defining HimSelf-Consciousness
is Always the only Presence, and if you Know Its Features well enough,
you must realize that the essential Nature of This Being Which Is is necessarily
the condition of Its Self-Presentation as You. And I will say that as
many times as you want until you’ve… if you want to take it down. I’ll
say it any number of ways to make that clear. Let us use that example
of clay again… if the modeling clay is gray and smooth and is shaped
as a dog, the dog has no choice but to be gray and smooth. In other words,
the essential nature of clay is necessarily the condition of the shape
it has assumed. So if I know the nature of Consciousness well enough,
I will have to admit that the essential nature of this my Being is necessarily
the condition of Its Self-Presentation as my existence. Exist and Be are
in a sense different things. Talbot Mundy made that clear in his book
called I Say Sunrise where he says exist is two Latin words “ex”
and “cisto” – ex means out and cisto means to make stand.
To exist is to stand out. Mundy says in that book,
“An actors talent does not exist, but it is.” That is the difference between
Being and existence. It has to Be in order to appear, and even though
it appears, it does not, in the literal sense, exist because it doesn’t
stand out, but it Is. Consciousness Is and Is All that Is and Its Essential
Nature Is Necessarily the Condition of Its Appearance. And that should,
when understood, take away the unsatisfactory appearance of any condition
to you-radically improve it, radically change it. You see, that is why
I keep harping on what the Nature of Consciousness Is, because unless
I Know what my Features Are, I’m not experiencing them, and if I’m not
experiencing them, they’re not showing up in the dramatized versions.
In order ever to get them to appear in the dramatized versions, they’ve
got to be experienced, and I can experience
them only if I acknowledge that They Are present in me; They Are Present
as the Nature of Me, the I of Me.
Judith: Last fall, I have a brother that’s a missionary
in Indonesia, and I got a long letter from him accusing me of being a
“new ager.” He had seven things… anyway, I
found out later when he admitted it that he got them from the Moody Magazine
which is very widely read. I answered them all with Scripture and finally
sent it back to him. They said they read it about ten times, and they
had a few questions. After all, I am the little sister, so not that credible
anyway as far as he is concerned, but I told him that, but he said his
reason for being worried about me is because he loves me, and I said,
“I know you love me, but it’s not a perfect love.” Divine Love casts out
all fear. (Inaudible about women’s group.) Resolving that, what state
is that? Fear seems the obvious.
Freedom: What is the opposite of fear? Fear is the
state, of course, but the opposite of that, if you’re looking for an opposite
state, you would find confidence which is at the other pole of fear, but
that still is no better because it’s merely conceivable; just the other
pole of fear, but look inward and find the Feature that is Real and Forever
Present, and there is conviction. That’s a very far cry… when you have
a firm conviction of the Reality of something, you’re not afraid.
And neither are you just confident. Those are on the
horizontal bar as we spoke of in last year’s conference.
Judith: Then obvious their conviction is not…
Freedom: Don’t try to make somebody else’s… don’t
deal with others.
That’s a pit fall. The problems come when we think
of anything as separated from my Consciousness of it. When you have seen
it as impersonal, totally impersonal, not with any face on it at all,
but a state that is represented, if fear is the state, call it by its
name, and then see how helpless it is to move itself. Fear cannot walk
up to you and say, “Put me on like your sweater this morning.” It can’t
do that.
But confidence cannot do that either. It’s just another
conceivable state. Don’t be fooled by the opposite pole, when it is still
just another state, because states come good, bad and indifferent. There
are all kinds. States are not always ugly, they’re sometimes very attractive.
But they are still only conceivable states. However, if you will go between
those opposite poles, and then work inward, you’ll find a Feature that
is bonified; it’s Real. (Inaudible question concerning quoting Scripture
to prove.) Somebody said, “All you need to promulgate a religion is a
good concordance and a prejudice.”
You can look up words, and if you have a severe prejudice,
you can make it seem to say what you believe. It may be that that’s what
you think I’m doing here, but I’m merely putting my reading into… I
know there were people at the castle that said I was merely reading into
the facade of the main building what I see there. Well, I don’t think
I could read it into it if it weren’t there to be seen. They say, “You
can’t say ‘I Am.'” I had written a poem and I knew then that they would
ask me what I believed in, but they were a little more tactful than that.
They said, “How does this compare to the things you hear in other places?”
I had written a little poem in Farsi for them, and in English it kind
of says that God said Moses was his sole friend, and Abraham was his friend,
and Abraham was to walk with God, and you know all the different things
of the prophets, and in the end it says “I Am.” No, it says if I Am One
of these or if I’m All of these, what would you call me? It just says,
“I Am.” They said,
“Nobody but Jesus can say I Am.” I said, “Oh, really.”
Freedom: Yes, I would like to know why if somebody
called that person by his name and he said, “I am so and so,” that’s what
I love about Moses when he feels so inadequate to the task when he’s asked
to march all of the Israelites out of Egypt, and he was so inadequate
he said, “When they me under whose authority, who shall I say sent me?”
God says, “Say I Am hath sent me.” Well, who’s I Am? he says. I’m paraphrasing,
but God says, “Remember the day by the burning bush, and I called out
to you, I said ‘Moses,’ and you said, ‘Here I am.’ That’s the I Am that
I Am.” It’s the same One. So you see you can say it. I used to read that
thing in Scripture, “I Am That I Am,” that’s the way it was said. Well,
it was said in bold caps and it was very impressive. What is my name?
I Am That I Am.
Gibberish. But when it dawned on me in that actual
conversation, “You remember the day by the burning bush, and I called
and said, ‘Moses,’ and you said, ‘Here I Am,'”
well, that’s the I Am That I Am.
Judith: My retort’s going to get longer.
Tirza: Maybe you won’t even have to retort.
Freedom: When it actually seen that my argument is
all conversations with myself, when I see that, I cease the opposition,
as you say, “You don’t have to have a retort.”
(From here there is too much wind to hear the question
or the answer, except in fragments. This is also where the lecture in
a sense ended and individuals began talking to Freedom one on one. I
will include fragments that I can hear clearly with clear meaning.)
Freedom: Someone was speaking earlier about the fear
of God. I have learned to read that as “revere” God. Instead of fear in
the sense of quaking in your boots because you’re scared to death of Him,
if you learn to stand in awe of Him, let’s say… regard His greatest,
accept God’s totality, until you can see it as Yours, then you no longer
fear God, you revere God. That’s a term that I in reading Scripture daily,
when I come to go through the Psalms, it’s very often that I will read
that, instead of fear, it’s revere. Reverence; reverence can be used as
a verb as well as a noun now. Amazing what usage does to the language.
(Wind makes question related to translations
of Scripture inaudible.) If you read any number of translations and it
begins to give you a wider sense of the meaning, and there are more accurate
translations, of course, than the King James Version. I always use the
King James because of its poetry; it’s poetically more attractive to my
ear. When you read the 13th verse of 1st Corinthians where it says, “Though
I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I
am as a tinkling cymbal or sounding brass.” Well, that’s beautiful poetry,
and in one of the translations that says, “I become a clanging gong.”
It doesn’t say it anymore clearly, does it?
Judith: The word charity means…
Freedom: The word charity… you often read the 13th
of 1st Corinthians and the word translated as charity here is translated
as love. I use love when I read it, I think of it that way.
Judith: There are alot of church people who will give
alot of charity…
Freedom: Charity but not charitably. So it says in
Scripture, “The poor you have always with you.” If you try pouring that
down a rat hole, nothing good is going to come out of it. That doesn’t
mean that you can’t be the Good Samaritan on all levels; you should be.
You always supply the need when you see, but if you just do it on that
level, no good has been achieved. A hungry belly filled today is hungry
tomorrow. There is more to it than that.
(Inaudible question)
Freedom: Who are the poor but the receptive in thought?
And whose fault is that but mine? That’s what it’s working towards, always
to trace it back to the Source; define it as where the buck stops, and
that’s where I’m calling It Real. So I’m accepting It as Truth. If instead
of my acceptance of the state as truth, I find in My Being a Feature that
Really Is True and acknowledge Its Presence, and experience Its Presence,
that is what radically changes the dramatized version.
<!-- Blauer Kasten Ende Englisch -->
</div>
== Querverweise ==
[[Category:Person]]
[[Category:Zeitzeugen]]
| |||