Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 12:18:55 GMT -5
Excellent post sunfirephoenix
|
|
|
Post by runstill on May 28, 2014 13:22:14 GMT -5
Excellent post sunfirephoenix Well I give her an A for effort...butt ...I don't get the whole enlighten butt thingy...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 13:43:48 GMT -5
Excellent post sunfirephoenix Well I give her an A for effort...butt ...I don't get the whole enlighten butt thingy... C'mon man. Stick the a$$ in the air, rearrange the chakras so that the tops are grounded, it's all cyst spurred. I looked up pilonidal - it's derived from "hair nest." Now if that isn't a poetic treasure, what else could be? A hair nest In flames Raised to the sun An offering And the phoenix flies All is new
|
|
|
Post by runstill on May 28, 2014 14:41:49 GMT -5
Well I give her an A for effort...butt ...I don't get the whole enlighten butt thingy... C'mon man. Stick the a$$ in the air, rearrange the chakras so that the tops are grounded, it's all cyst spurred. I looked up pilonidal - it's derived from "hair nest." Now if that isn't a poetic treasure, what else could be? A hair nest In flames Raised to the sun An offering And the phoenix flies All is new Ohooo..whoooo , a poem gotcha....
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 5, 2014 17:48:10 GMT -5
I had a recently tragic experience with this and wanted to share my own answers and spiritual speculations on pilonidal cysts. I have been working with a family whose father was a meth addict, thus far he's had a daughter who's addicted to pain, a son who was addicted to meth before he was addicted to destructice love before he was addicted to self-love but always to music and thrills, a son who is addicted to work; a daughter who is addicted to love, sex, music, drugs and money in that order; an underage son addicted to love and bringing contentment to people he loves through any means, a younger one who is rather industrious with his cash flow, and the youngest who is 7 and loves to read books. From this experience I have gleaned that one's sense of vitality or life energy is passed down through parentage. The slang for meth here is "extra hours in a day" this drug that stimulates and enhances your senses, your base needs and your base fears by a thousand fold. The extra hours in a day were stolen from his earliest children, it was worse when they lost their mother, yet vitality seemed to have gained in later generations. Same with the level of perceived biblical good, though in my eyes they all have beautiful souls. Their vigor for life; however, seems to run opposite as perhaps it was hard for the father to experience the same peak of joy after turning from meth to the bible, I feel like just now he has been able to recapture a semblance of that rush. I will now need to tie in my story. I had never experienced such a pain in my life and I grew up with constant physical abuse. I was a stripper at the time with a great young lover I had met accidentally during a road trip. I was a singer with my first live concert I had sunk all my finances into thinking that important people were going to come and that my friends would fill enough seats for two back to back shows. I had a full crew and cast and catering, prepared for what I was told an awesome show by the one person who did end up actually showing up: my best friend. After the show my lover fracked my production assistant on the cleaned off catering table as I relived one of my worst nightmares of someone cheating on me in a theater. The boys with a connect surprisingly came just to frack around at the after party that did not exist. I had a secret death wish. Days before the show I had to quit dancing with my cyst in bloom. Days before I had wanted to quit dancing for the blossoming love that was unfolding. I too found that kneeling with your head and chest down is the only comfortable position for this illness. As an exotic dancer, my derrier was my money maker and I had literally worked my derrier off for my car that replaced my last one that needed a new engine, and to have and share my art. Now I literally had to save it myself. I couldn't stand to help anyone, I couldn't sit to listen, I couldn't drive without mitigating the pain. I had to learn to love myself in ways I never did. Because my injury did affect my work, I couldn't go back to work for a month, I went into massive debt and lost everything but the roof over my head, which was all I had to begin with. It was like through having this miserable illness, the only way to resolve it was to recalibrate my chakras to the earth. My third flush to the bed, my throat and heart chakra faced directly towards the ground, my solar plexus chakra of self worth raised above the heart, my sacral chakra of being accepting new people and experiences was raised farther still as my butt root chakra had to shoot straight up. I literally had to enlighten my own ass. Like a swollen wound of any sort it has to be elevated so that the blood doesn't collect in feeding the wound. Just me and my butt pointed towards the sky. Other methods that helped: A warm compress - heat is energy, energy your own butt doesn't have to heal itself Benzoyl Peroxide - the best all around antiseptic Abreva on the spot meant for dealing with Cleaning my butt and lying down as much as possible. You can't be stressed with such an illness, everything goes staight to your ass. I actually retired from dancing after this injury. Back to lineage and vitality, I can only suggest your mother was trying to resolve an earth debt with love and so you were born with her debts, but it's one you can repay with at least a month's worth of constant care and attention to recalibrate. I just hope this much needed break from being a fellow workaholic won't put you in as much debt that it has myself. Much love, serenity and joy to you Beingist I pray this message reaches you well or that you have already discovered your solution. And to all, please never give up on the fallen. Belief is a powerful cure in itself when there is nothing left to offer. Much love for you all. Um. What?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 27, 2014 13:35:13 GMT -5
I am, is .... suffering .
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 27, 2014 17:05:29 GMT -5
I am, is .... suffering . How so?
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jul 28, 2014 2:22:07 GMT -5
I am, is .... suffering . How so? When one is aware of self to being something one is suffering because of that something . That something be it 'I am' is to a degree not everything or what you are that is also nothing .. One's point of awareness say's it all . If there has been nothing realized in relation to no self then in comparisons I am is suffering always .
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 28, 2014 10:06:04 GMT -5
When one is aware of self to being something one is suffering because of that something . That something be it 'I am' is to a degree not everything or what you are that is also nothing .. One's point of awareness say's it all . If there has been nothing realized in relation to no self then in comparisons I am is suffering always . 'I am' doesn't define you as 'something'. It just means 'I exist'. You do, in fact, exist. That you exist is not cause for suffering.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2014 13:11:38 GMT -5
When one is aware of self to being something one is suffering because of that something . That something be it 'I am' is to a degree not everything or what you are that is also nothing .. One's point of awareness say's it all . If there has been nothing realized in relation to no self then in comparisons I am is suffering always . 'I am' doesn't define you as 'something'. It just means 'I exist'. You do, in fact, exist. That you exist is not cause for suffering. Not the cause but the root. In the law this is referred to as "but-for" causation. I'm sure you've discussed this on more than one occasion. In that third form you find, once again, that distinction (implicit here) between being and existence: "A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance." Combining this with the Bhudda quote ("I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.") there is a riddle for the mind here: How can suffering end if it pervades all forms of existence?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 28, 2014 13:45:37 GMT -5
'I am' doesn't define you as 'something'. It just means 'I exist'. You do, in fact, exist. That you exist is not cause for suffering. Not the cause but the root. In the law this is referred to as "but-for" causation. I'm sure you've discussed this on more than one occasion. In that third form you find, once again, that distinction (implicit here) between being and existence: "A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance." Combining this with the Bhudda quote ("I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.") there is a riddle for the mind here: How can suffering end if it pervades all forms of existence? Suffering is not inherent to existence, but to form. It is not existence that is impermanent. Of course, many define existence as impermanent form, but obviously I do not. The whole issue would be a matter of definition but for the undeniability of one's own beingness prior to form, and if 'I am' has a fundamental meaning, it has to refer to that which is prior to all appearances: that to which all form appears. That which I am, which cannot take form. That which is never born. Is 'I am' a passing cloud in the sky? The morning fog cannot hide from the sun, and the sun will surely rise. And so the fog is doomed, predestined to suffer a meaningless existence and die, at best transformed into something equally meaningless and insubstantial. This is the fate of forms, but is this existence or is it a dream turned nighmarish, playing out before that which cannot be touched by dreams?; that voyeur of struggle and pain and death which never floated in the river of time. I know of this because everything appears to me. Every moment is a story about what I am not.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2014 15:45:23 GMT -5
Not the cause but the root. In the law this is referred to as "but-for" causation. I'm sure you've discussed this on more than one occasion. In that third form you find, once again, that distinction (implicit here) between being and existence: "A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, because all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance." Combining this with the Bhudda quote ("I have taught one thing and one thing only, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha.") there is a riddle for the mind here: How can suffering end if it pervades all forms of existence? Suffering is not inherent to existence, but to form. It is not existence that is impermanent. Of course, many define existence as impermanent form, but obviously I do not. The whole issue would be a matter of definition but for the undeniability of one's own beingness prior to form, and if 'I am' has a fundamental meaning, it has to refer to that which is prior to all appearances: that to which all form appears. That which I am, which cannot take form. That which is never born. Is 'I am' a passing cloud in the sky? I don't disagree but of course there seem to be alot of peeps who might take various issues with "beingness prior to form". This seems to me to correlate with the population that sees themselves as separate volitional entities. For example, some peeps might scoff at it, some might question the undeniability of it, others might be honest about the fact that it just perplexes them -- there are as many specific reactions to it as there are peeps. In any event it's a peeps nature to be curious about it once they encounter the idea in some form that catches their attention. Also, I read your version of "I am" as a pointer, but the mind can read it as a positive statement of an objectified identity. The morning fog cannot hide from the sun, and the sun will surely rise. And so the fog is doomed, predestined to suffer a meaningless existence and die, at best transformed into something equally meaningless and insubstantial. This is the fate of forms, but is this existence or is it a dream turned nighmarish, playing out before that which cannot be touched by dreams?; that voyeur of struggle and pain and death which never floated in the river of time. I know of this because everything appears to me. Every moment is a story about what I am not. The meaning of the clouds is interwoven into the meandering meaningless happening of the streams that they nourish and the sound of the trout that leap out of those waters to snatch at a hovering dragonfly, and that exact same meaning is found in the diffraction of the sun into all colors from the fly's wings as it flits out of reach. The mind misses the point of the absence of meaning in a cycle of change that always winds up where it began, and makes a bleak grey field of meaningfulness out of the ashes of meaninglessness. As the story is ever only about what you are not, the idea of "I am" can of course only ever be a pointer to what it is that you are.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 28, 2014 17:12:37 GMT -5
Suffering is not inherent to existence, but to form. It is not existence that is impermanent. Of course, many define existence as impermanent form, but obviously I do not. The whole issue would be a matter of definition but for the undeniability of one's own beingness prior to form, and if 'I am' has a fundamental meaning, it has to refer to that which is prior to all appearances: that to which all form appears. That which I am, which cannot take form. That which is never born. Is 'I am' a passing cloud in the sky? I don't disagree but of course there seem to be alot of peeps who might take various issues with "beingness prior to form". This seems to me to correlate with the population that sees themselves as separate volitional entities. For example, some peeps might scoff at it, some might question the undeniability of it, others might be honest about the fact that it just perplexes them -- there are as many specific reactions to it as there are peeps. In any event it's a peeps nature to be curious about it once they encounter the idea in some form that catches their attention. Also, I read your version of "I am" as a pointer, but the mind can read it as a positive statement of an objectified identity. The morning fog cannot hide from the sun, and the sun will surely rise. And so the fog is doomed, predestined to suffer a meaningless existence and die, at best transformed into something equally meaningless and insubstantial. This is the fate of forms, but is this existence or is it a dream turned nighmarish, playing out before that which cannot be touched by dreams?; that voyeur of struggle and pain and death which never floated in the river of time. I know of this because everything appears to me. Every moment is a story about what I am not. The meaning of the clouds is interwoven into the meandering meaningless happening of the streams that they nourish and the sound of the trout that leap out of those waters to snatch at a hovering dragonfly, and that exact same meaning is found in the diffraction of the sun into all colors from the fly's wings as it flits out of reach. The mind misses the point of the absence of meaning in a cycle of change that always winds up where it began, and makes a bleak grey field of meaningfulness out of the ashes of meaninglessness. As the story is ever only about what you are not, the idea of "I am" can of course only ever be a pointer to what it is that you are. Yeah, I thought it might be useful to bring it out in the open so's peeps could challenge it directly. It's true that the sense 'I am' appears, and we obviously aren't that sense, and I won't ask to whom or to what it appears because that question seems to be distracting, but the fact of appearance is a pointer to a prior existence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2014 20:41:57 GMT -5
I don't disagree but of course there seem to be alot of peeps who might take various issues with "beingness prior to form". This seems to me to correlate with the population that sees themselves as separate volitional entities. For example, some peeps might scoff at it, some might question the undeniability of it, others might be honest about the fact that it just perplexes them -- there are as many specific reactions to it as there are peeps. In any event it's a peeps nature to be curious about it once they encounter the idea in some form that catches their attention. Also, I read your version of "I am" as a pointer, but the mind can read it as a positive statement of an objectified identity. The meaning of the clouds is interwoven into the meandering meaningless happening of the streams that they nourish and the sound of the trout that leap out of those waters to snatch at a hovering dragonfly, and that exact same meaning is found in the diffraction of the sun into all colors from the fly's wings as it flits out of reach. The mind misses the point of the absence of meaning in a cycle of change that always winds up where it began, and makes a bleak grey field of meaningfulness out of the ashes of meaninglessness. As the story is ever only about what you are not, the idea of "I am" can of course only ever be a pointer to what it is that you are. Yeah, I thought it might be useful to bring it out in the open so's peeps could challenge it directly. It's true that the sense 'I am' appears, and we obviously aren't that sense, and I won't ask to whom or to what it appears because that question seems to be distracting, but the fact of appearance is a pointer to a prior existence. This is a case where recursion is actually useful for a change because the one so distracted can only answer the question for themselves, and the most direct way to do that is to stop and ask, "what is it that finds this question interesting?". Seems to me that a direct answer in the form of a pointer ("emptiness", "this is what you are", "silence", "spaciousness", "isness", "awareness" ...) is only useful if the questioner is open, curious, and not in the mood to argue. In any case, at least they can be let in on the fact that the question has to be asked in innocence in order for it to lead to anything more than futile minding. So the spin on the loop can take the form of reflecting the question back ("inquire as to who asks it"), but these days I've seen peeps react to that as smart-ass. Another way is just to say "hey, don't ask me pal, .. .. you gotta find that out fer yerself ".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 28, 2014 21:08:49 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought it might be useful to bring it out in the open so's peeps could challenge it directly. It's true that the sense 'I am' appears, and we obviously aren't that sense, and I won't ask to whom or to what it appears because that question seems to be distracting, but the fact of appearance is a pointer to a prior existence. This is a case where recursion is actually useful for a change because the one so distracted can only answer the question for themselves, and the most direct way to do that is to stop and ask, "what is it that finds this question interesting?". Seems to me that a direct answer in the form of a pointer ("emptiness", "this is what you are", "silence", "spaciousness", "isness", "awareness" ...) is only useful if the questioner is open, curious, and not in the mood to argue. In any case, at least they can be let in on the fact that the question has to be asked in innocence in order for it to lead to anything more than futile minding. So the spin on the loop can take the form of reflecting the question back ("inquire as to who asks it"), but these days I've seen peeps react to that as smart-ass. Another way is just to say "hey, don't ask me pal, .. .. you gotta find that out fer yerself ". I think nondualies are tired of having that question thrown at em.
|
|