what is the sacred flame?

[watrinh]

I was hoping someone can give some insight into the sacred flame. What exactly is this flame and how do you access it? Is it the same thing as causal light force?

[Timotheus]

:D

[CFTraveler]

Yeah, but did you answer the question?

[Tom]

Yeah, but did you answer the question?

We need more information about the context of this sacred flame before the question can be answered. To begin with, which sacred flame? It's like the jokes about a person talking about The One True God. Yes, but which The One True God? It seems that One True Gods are a dime a dozen. Sacred flames are even more common. The first one that came to mind for me is the triple flame in the heart, which has yellow, blue, and pink twisted together for power, love, and knowledge. I don't recall which color represents which virtue. The important thing is to balance the colors and then expand the flame.

[watrinh]

I always thought the sacred flame was your own true light. There's ways to tap into it and emit this rainbow spectrum internally. Not sure if it could grow or die, but I understand it is supposed to be eternal and indestructible.

[Tom]

I always thought the sacred flame was your own true light. There's ways to tap into it and emit this rainbow spectrum internally. Not sure if it could grow or die, but I understand it is supposed to be eternal and indestructible.

More context, please. Like where did you hear about it and what is this rainbow supposed to do when you generate it? I'm already thinking Buddha-nature, Christ Consciousness, and Krishna Consciousness. It also reminds me of Bodhichitta and Dzogchen's Rainbow Body, but I do tend to favor Buddhism so I'm a bit biased.

[watrinh]

I always thought the sacred flame was your own true light. There's ways to tap into it and emit this rainbow spectrum internally. Not sure if it could grow or die, but I understand it is supposed to be eternal and indestructible.

More context, please. Like where did you hear about it and what is this rainbow supposed to do when you generate it? I'm already thinking Buddha-nature, Christ Consciousness, and Krishna Consciousness. It also reminds me of Bodhichitta and Dzogchen's Rainbow Body, but I do tend to favor Buddhism so I'm a bit biased.

I believe it relates to the buddha-nature/true self. I guess it is like Tim was saying in the first post. So it's a rainbow spectrum that represents your inner nature.

[Timotheus]

:D

[Timotheus]

:roll:

[Tom]

Several years ago I was at a teaching where we were instructed to visualize a white sphere the size and shape of a pearl, but glowing brilliantly, in the heart chakra. Perhaps you could have it radiate rainbow colored light or clear light or white light or gold light to fill the entire body and then the aura. The light in the heart chakra is your Buddha-nature. If it hadn't become activated in you, you wouldn't be interested in attaining Buddhahood. That desire to attain Buddhahood and the sustained effort to accomplish the goal result from the increasing activity of your Buddha-nature. The problem is that there are layers which act to obscure the light and oppose its efforts. Ultimately the light must overcome all obstacles, both major and minor, but it could take a very long time without your active participation. The way to accomplish the goal is to increase virtues that are present, activate the virtues that are dormant, remove expressions of negativity (hatred, attachment, delusion) that are present, and burn away tendencies toward negativy that are not being expressed. What you feed with your awareness and attention will grow. By visualizing the light in your heart chakra and becoming aware of it as your Buddha-nature, you are working to increase your tendencies toward virtue and to decrease your tendencies toward negativity. Your tendencies are more important than your actual thoughts, emotions, and actions because those things result from your tendencies - at the same time, they eventually add up and become powerful enough to shape your tendencies and from there your future thoughts, emotions, and actions. At least in meditation, it can be helpful to act "as if" your Buddha-nature has completed the work and you are now a fully enlightened Buddha, sitting in meditation. This is known as taking the result into the path, and it greatly speeds up the process of actually reaching the result.

(It really isn't an easy thing to do. I haven't even attempted this meditation in years. I might try it again, because I have "lightened up" considerably since my last attempt.)

[Korpo]

Thanks, Tom, that was interesting.

Oliver

[ButterflyWoman]

If it hadn't become activated in you, you wouldn't be interested in attaining Buddhahood. That desire to attain Buddhahood and the sustained effort to accomplish the goal result from the increasing activity of your Buddha-nature. The problem is that there are layers which act to obscure the light and oppose its efforts. Ultimately the light must overcome all obstacles
Bless you, Tom. I know you weren't writing that to me (you'd have had no way of knowing I needed to hear it!) but it illuminates several things I've been struggling with and/or wondering about.


The way to accomplish the goal is to increase virtues that are present, activate the virtues that are dormant, remove expressions of negativity (hatred, attachment, delusion) that are present, and burn away tendencies toward negativy that are not being expressed.
Oh, is THAT all? :P :)


At least in meditation, it can be helpful to act "as if" your Buddha-nature has completed the work and you are now a fully enlightened Buddha, sitting in meditation. This is known as taking the result into the path, and it greatly speeds up the process of actually reaching the result.
That's brilliant. Definitely going to try that as soon as I get the opportunity. Thank you, again.

[Timotheus]

:D

[watrinh]

The way to accomplish the goal is to increase virtues that are present, activate the virtues that are dormant, remove expressions of negativity (hatred, attachment, delusion) that are present, and burn away tendencies toward negativy that are not being expressed.


Easier said than done. In other words, you'd have to annihilate all your ego's.

[Tom]

The talk about destroying the ego is overkill. Ego is something you do; it is not something you are. You could say you destroy walking every time you sit down, but why? Watch yourself so you catch yourself doing ego and congratulate yourself on your successes. The problem is that it is so easy to do ego without being conscious of it, and it starts to look like there are no other options but to keep doing it. Map it out and you will see its limitations, then beyond those limitations.

[CFTraveler]

The talk about destroying the ego is overkill. Ego is something you do; it is not something you are. You could say you destroy walking every time you sit down, but why? Watch yourself so you catch yourself doing ego and congratulate yourself on your successes. The problem is that it is so easy to do ego without being conscious of it, and it starts to look like there are no other options but to keep doing it. Map it out and you will see its limitations, then beyond those limitations. I don't want to sound like I'm butt kissing, but that was a Thing of Beauty.
You know I'll quote it.

[watrinh]

The talk about destroying the ego is overkill. Ego is something you do; it is not something you are. You could say you destroy walking every time you sit down, but why? Watch yourself so you catch yourself doing ego and congratulate yourself on your successes. The problem is that it is so easy to do ego without being conscious of it, and it starts to look like there are no other options but to keep doing it. Map it out and you will see its limitations, then beyond those limitations.


The ego that which you have to annihilate I believe is the parts of you that are susceptible to external programming and influences. The aspects of you that react negatively to something when you want to react positively. Pretty much the inability to be like who you truly want to be without external influences is your ego that must be annihilated.

[ButterflyWoman]

The ego that which you have to annihilate I believe is the parts of you that are susceptible to external programming and influences.
Not even great and enlightened teachers are invulnerable to outside influences and events. We all still function in the material world while we are alive. Unless you go and live in a cave and never speak to anyone, you have to interact with what's around you.


The aspects of you that react negatively to something when you want to react positively.
Actually, as I understand it, enlightenment includes a sense that "negative" and "positive" are just material qualifiers, anyway.

Certainly, I can see some benefit in healing or changing or altering your ego so it will behave more in a way you'd like it to behave, but that's not really anything to do with Oneness/Unity or awakening. It's just tuning the instrument that you use to interact with the material world.


Pretty much the inability to be like who you truly want to be without external influences is your ego that must be annihilated.
That's not the same thing Tom is talking about, I don't think. You're talking more about "self improvement" or similar. Altering your ego is not an unworthy pursuit (heaven knows I've spent YEARS at that, and I'm still at it), but it won't lead you any closer to enlightenment. When you focus on your ego and put your attention there, that's where you're putting your attention, whether you're trying to immolate parts of yourself or heal them.

Sorry to make this sound like a lecture, as I suspect it does. Fact is, it appears that I had this understanding sort of unformed in my consciousness and when I was writing this, it all took form as I was writing. I'll leave the post for posterity's sake (and, hey, if I get it wrong, I can come back some time later and go, "Boy, I sure got that wrong!").

[Timotheus]

:D

[Timotheus]

:D

[ButterflyWoman]

be free to see the emptiness that needs filling, and be not afraid to make mistakes, for they teach us. and always listen to your true all knowing voice, even if it slightly sends you toward a mistake in wording, it is only meant so that the lesson is fully learned. :D
That's lovely. Thank you. :)

[watrinh]

What I meant was if your mind wants to react one way and you react the other there's a fragmentation in your psyche back to dualism. I always thought the goal was to annihilate all the darkness to align with the light. If that's true, then there wouldn't be a negative psychological reaction when you want a neutral or positive reaction. In fact, there wouldn't be a negative reaction period. Then there'd be no fragmentation in your being and you'd be nice and one sided.

[Timotheus]

:D

[watrinh]

in the darkness is found the most brilliant light of all. yours lighting your way.

annihilate it? no

respect and love its mystery? yes

the mystery was you all along.

I suppose you won't annihilate the darkness, but harmonize with it. Once you're in harmony with it, then your dark aspect is with the light I suppose.

[Timotheus]

:D

[ButterflyWoman]

I always thought the goal was to annihilate all the darkness to align with the light.
That's dualism right there. Darkness, light, neither one exists without the other. ;)

As I understand it, the goal is remembering the Truth. I don't think that "good and evil" or "light and dark" or any of those qualifiers really have anything to do with ultimate truth, because all of those are material concepts.


If that's true, then there wouldn't be a negative psychological reaction when you want a neutral or positive reaction.
I don't understand what you mean.

Yes, your psyche/ego/whatever you want to call it can have weird and stupid and harmful reactions to things. Fixing those things is a worthy pursuit. But that's not spiritual enlightenment. It may HELP in that regard, but simply repairing or healing parts of your personality is only just that. Your personality/ego/etc is material. It's not really YOU. The goal is to come to see the absolute truth of who you really are, and it's not your ego/personality/thoughts/emotions/reactions/etc. ;)

BUT... this assumes that there even is a "goal". I'm not convinced there is. Is it really necessary or even likely for every person to have a full and abiding spiritual awakening to their own Godself? I think the answer to that is obviously, no. Maybe the purpose of existence is just for the experience of existing, to alleviate the boredom of Source, by creating all these interesting characters (i.e., us) and putting them into a very convincing virtual simulation and then actually being all the characters. A very complicated game of solitaire, as it were... *shrug*

[star]

The source must have an awesome imagination

[ButterflyWoman]

The source must have an awesome imagination
An infinite one. ;)

[watrinh]

Hmm...

How do I say it... If you merge back to oneness, you'd essentially be merging the dualistic opposite polarities together. After which you would manifest your true nature, which is one of the three: light, dark, or neutral. After all, when you merge darkness with the light, one of three things happen: you have more darkness in your nature than light, so you become totally dark; you have more light than darkness, so you manifest as a light being; you're totally neutral, so you manifest as a neutral being (buddhic?). You're either of total light, neutral, or dark. The three never disappear. Just a thought. Not sure what actually happens.

[ButterflyWoman]

If you merge back to oneness, you'd essentially be merging the dualistic opposite polarities together. After which you would manifest your true nature, which is one of the three: light, dark, or neutral. After all, when you merge darkness with the light, one of three things happen: you have more darkness in your nature than light, so you become totally dark; you have more light than darkness, so you manifest as a light being; you're totally neutral, so you manifest as a neutral being (buddhic?).
Sounds complicated. ;)


You're either of total light, neutral, or dark.
Those are egoic definitions, though. I'm making no claim to enlightenment, but what glimpses I have had indicate that there is no "good" or "bad" or "light" or "dark". There just is. It all just is what it is, and that's very obvious when attachments are not in effect.

I was just reading an excellent book this afternoon, and I wanted to quote from it, but I can't find where I put it down when I came in. It's by Adyashanti, and it's called "The End of Your World". It's an excellent book, with very good and practical insights in the the process of enlightenment (which is why I wanted to quote from it). When I find it again I'll come back and share a couple things that struck me in relation to this conversation.

Do note that this conversation is, from my point of view, for my own edification and to allow me to define some stuff in my own consciousness. I don't particularly care or need to "convert" anyone. :) I'm not that kind of spiritualist. ;)

[star]

Hmm...

How do I say it... If you merge back to oneness, you'd essentially be merging the dualistic opposite polarities together. After which you would manifest your true nature, which is one of the three: light, dark, or neutral. After all, when you merge darkness with the light, one of three things happen: you have more darkness in your nature than light, so you become totally dark; you have more light than darkness, so you manifest as a light being; you're totally neutral, so you manifest as a neutral being (buddhic?). You're either of total light, neutral, or dark. The three never disappear. Just a thought. Not sure what actually happens.

You could use something like Zazen to start with, try for mushin or no mind. It really is a good start.

[watrinh]

Hmm...

How do I say it... If you merge back to oneness, you'd essentially be merging the dualistic opposite polarities together. After which you would manifest your true nature, which is one of the three: light, dark, or neutral. After all, when you merge darkness with the light, one of three things happen: you have more darkness in your nature than light, so you become totally dark; you have more light than darkness, so you manifest as a light being; you're totally neutral, so you manifest as a neutral being (buddhic?). You're either of total light, neutral, or dark. The three never disappear. Just a thought. Not sure what actually happens.

You could use something like Zazen to start with, try for mushin or no mind. It really is a good start.

Actually I prefer the term divine judgment. If you think about it, judgment is when your heart is weighed. Merger back to oneness where the opposite polarities collapse together forces your sins to merge with your virtue. I would assume then that your sin force will kill off the virtue and whatever is left of you will determine if you go to heaven or hell.

[CFTraveler]

This idea of 'weighing the heart' sounds a lot like the ancient Egyptian way of looking at it, except with the Egyptians the 'sins' were destroyed since they were really the soul's attachment to material guilt, so what was left was the primordial soul essence, which either went to paradise or went back into the sun with Ra.

In your point of view temporal 'sins' are more important than eternal love. I don't get the logic, but I guess I don't have to.

[ButterflyWoman]

Actually I prefer the term divine judgment.
This assumes, of course, that the Divine has a standard of right, wrong, good, bad, etc., etc., and wants to judge people against it. It also makes some assumptions about the apparently grave importance of our material selves.


I would assume then that your sin force will kill off the virtue and whatever is left of you will determine if you go to heaven or hell.
Ah. Well, there we go. I don't believe in the "go to heaven or hell" thing, unless it's some sort of afterlife that we, ourselves, create because it's what we believe in.

For me, the whole "heaven and hell" thing is way too dualistic and too much based on an extremely materialistic and temporal point of view.

Anyway, I can see how we weren't able to reach an accord of understanding. Very, very different perspectives.