|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2013 0:46:44 GMT -5
Compared to what I'd call Gangaji's sort of "mainstream" take on the topic, Niz takes an eyebrow-raising tack on beliefs here: Now of course, in the context of the discussion, the seeker self-disclaimed the value of his beliefs, so Niz didn't have to explain that to the seeker. Nonetheless, his particular message to this particular conversant might be paraphrased as "fake it 'till ya' make it". All in all, so far, I find the Niz take on the question of practice, despite the rock-bottom simplicity of what is essentially a single prescription, to be as subtle, nuanced and varied as humanity itself. What eggzakly is it you find so interesting about this? It is counter to a few of the internet cliches that are floating around: 1) Here Niz acknowledges essentially rote memorization as better than nothing. 2) This is one of several dialogs where Niz addresses the notion of practice, and while yes, he constantly re-iterates that the seeker and what is sought are one in the same, he does recommend practice. The details of this vary quite a bit from person-to-person, with the core prescription remaining constant ... but he doesn't say not to practice and he often does say to practice.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 8, 2013 1:22:48 GMT -5
It's the start of Chapter 30 of "I AM THAT", which is entitled: "You are Free NOW". I recommend reading the later books, like "Consciousness and the Absolute" with the dialogs just before he left the movie. Mucho more clearer and to the point than "I Am That" Oh, that's just great. Right after I tell my best friend that I was ready for another book. Reefs, you suck.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 8, 2013 2:24:12 GMT -5
What eggzakly is it you find so interesting about this? It is counter to a few of the internet cliches that are floating around: 1) Here Niz acknowledges essentially rote memorization as better than nothing. 2) This is one of several dialogs where Niz addresses the notion of practice, and while yes, he constantly re-iterates that the seeker and what is sought are one in the same, he does recommend practice. The details of this vary quite a bit from person-to-person, with the core prescription remaining constant ... but he doesn't say not to practice and he often does say to practice. Oh, okay. Well even the practice curmudgeon (me) sees the potential value of some practices. I merely try to point to the potential to notice the boundaries of practices.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Jan 8, 2013 13:24:13 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2013 13:24:13 GMT -5
It is counter to a few of the internet cliches that are floating around: 1) Here Niz acknowledges essentially rote memorization as better than nothing. 2) This is one of several dialogs where Niz addresses the notion of practice, and while yes, he constantly re-iterates that the seeker and what is sought are one in the same, he does recommend practice. The details of this vary quite a bit from person-to-person, with the core prescription remaining constant ... but he doesn't say not to practice and he often does say to practice. Oh, okay. Well even the practice curmudgeon (me) sees the potential value of some practices. I merely try to point to the potential to notice the boundaries of practices. Yes well I see as much value in the crumudgeoning as I see in the practice itself. As I’ve said before, your ability the channel Niz is quite uncanny. For one, hearing the warning about assigning meaning to practice keeps someone new to all of this from diving in head first and coming out of the water covered in the seaweed of new beliefs and ideals to rest the mind on. My little home-grown practice is good enough. If new info comes, fine, but I’m not going to let what can seem to the mind to be an overwhelming pull fool me into characterizing it as anything more than it is: new info. This also translates into fewer barriers to incorporating practice into every second of every day of my life … if it ain’t no thing, ain’t no production, then internal resistance to following the pointers anywhere everytime fall away. It’s no longer impractical or tiring to live life without the prop of the models. I see the contradiction that the logical thinking mind makes between direct pointing and prescriptions to practice for what it is, and in that, the two coexist without resort to dismissal as a false dichotomy. Here, let me state the obvious paradox’s that the mind creates out of this so that you can channel Niz for us: Well, there’s noone to practice and nothing to practice … and yet, there I am, sitting on a bench after a run, or staring out into the woods below from a chairlift without a thought for 10,000 miles, or standing in line at a convenience store feeling the inner body with each breath instead of being impatient and resenting the waste of my time. Yes, that’s the easiest one to resolve: simply put down the knife and see the truth. (and yes, of course, this is the nuts and bolts of any resolution of such apparent contradicition). There’s noone to do this, and yet I do it. There is nothing to do, as being aware is the natural state, and yet, when not being aware of being aware is noticed, when I subsequently turn attention to that awareness, I’ve apparently done something. There is no reason to do this, and yet, as I’ve already said here, in the apparent doing, I seem to move in the direction away from life by model, and toward total and complete surrender to and faith in God, of accepting each and every moment as it comes for what it is without resistance, even those times when it appears that I have to accept that I have to apparently resist something. There is no reason to do any of this, but in apparently doing it, I lose myself to gain the world. It is pointless, and yet, I can’t think of any other possible point to life. In the end, apparent petty benefits like lower-blood pressure, higher clarity of thought and speech, these have no center to attach to, and if practice is done for these reasons it’s not really practice, because the only real practice seems to be the practice of what we are never not, which is here and now. This isn’t a dig at anything like Hindu, Bhuddist or Zen practices … these are what and as they are: beautiful embodiments of time-tested and proven effective culture, and a breathtaking human legacy … it’s just that they are what they are, and my practice is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 8, 2018 9:36:49 GMT -5
"The common worldview, shared by most humans, is that there is one objective reality, and we humans can understand that reality through a rigorous application of facts and reason. This view of the world imagines that some people have already achieved a fact-based type of enlightenment that is compatible with science and logic, and they are trying to help the rest of us see the world the 'right' way. As far as I can tell, most people share that interpretation of the world. The only wrinkle with that worldview is that we all think we are the enlightened ones. And we assume the people who disagree with us just need better facts, and perhaps better brains, in order to agree with us. That filter on life makes most of us happy-because we see ourselves as the smart ones-and it does a good job of predicting the future, but only because confirmation bias (our tendency to interpret data as supporting our views) will make the future look any way we want it to look, within reason." - Scott AdamsIt's well said. Science shares a certain abstract similarity to neti-neti, to seeing the false, as false. But science is a process of belief swapping, while the process of becoming conscious is that of noticing beliefs for what they are, seeing them with clarity, and not replacing them with anything else. Science looks outward, collectively, but self-inquiry, is not that. As someone who started out a long time ago as an atheist, there was no God-baggage to get rid of. But the secular humanist beliefs have specifically stood the tests of time. This is what the scientific method is all about: re-think, question, challenge, and acknowledge what the observations reveal as the truth. Science-based beliefs are the best that can be bought with the coin of intellect. The flexibility of allowing for future knowns to eventually emerge from the unknown folds it all over into a sort of mental Gordian knot. Seems to me that it makes for a rather grim existential prognosis for the generations on the immediate horizon.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Jun 10, 2018 9:27:11 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 10, 2018 9:27:11 GMT -5
"The common worldview, shared by most humans, is that there is one objective reality, and we humans can understand that reality through a rigorous application of facts and reason. This view of the world imagines that some people have already achieved a fact-based type of enlightenment that is compatible with science and logic, and they are trying to help the rest of us see the world the 'right' way. As far as I can tell, most people share that interpretation of the world. The only wrinkle with that worldview is that we all think we are the enlightened ones. And we assume the people who disagree with us just need better facts, and perhaps better brains, in order to agree with us. That filter on life makes most of us happy-because we see ourselves as the smart ones-and it does a good job of predicting the future, but only because confirmation bias (our tendency to interpret data as supporting our views) will make the future look any way we want it to look, within reason." - Scott AdamsIt's well said. Science shares a certain abstract similarity to neti-neti, to seeing the false, as false. But science is a process of belief swapping, while the process of becoming conscious is that of noticing beliefs for what they are, seeing them with clarity, and not replacing them with anything else. Science looks outward, collectively, but self-inquiry, is not that. As someone who started out a long time ago as an atheist, there was no God-baggage to get rid of. But the secular humanist beliefs have specifically stood the tests of time. This is what the scientific method is all about: re-think, question, challenge, and acknowledge what the observations reveal as the truth. Science-based beliefs are the best that can be bought with the coin of intellect. The flexibility of allowing for future knowns to eventually emerge from the unknown folds it all over into a sort of mental Gordian knot. Seems to me that it makes for a rather grim existential prognosis for the generations on the immediate horizon. Actually, Scott is just quoting from the MMM, hehe. Yes, in theory, that's what the scientific method is all about. But I rather think that's always only been an ideal. Also, there's always been an esoteric science that actually did look inward. Pythagoras comes to mind here. And the way I see it, as the collective consciousness keeps expanding, esoteric science is slowly becoming mainstream. So I'm rather optimistic. But a lot of folks will have some rude awakenings in terms of collapsing beliefs. The case could actually be made that what is esoteric science now has actually been mainstream science in the distant past.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Jun 10, 2018 10:35:26 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2018 10:35:26 GMT -5
It's well said. Science shares a certain abstract similarity to neti-neti, to seeing the false, as false. But science is a process of belief swapping, while the process of becoming conscious is that of noticing beliefs for what they are, seeing them with clarity, and not replacing them with anything else. Science looks outward, collectively, but self-inquiry, is not that. As someone who started out a long time ago as an atheist, there was no God-baggage to get rid of. But the secular humanist beliefs have specifically stood the tests of time. This is what the scientific method is all about: re-think, question, challenge, and acknowledge what the observations reveal as the truth. Science-based beliefs are the best that can be bought with the coin of intellect. The flexibility of allowing for future knowns to eventually emerge from the unknown folds it all over into a sort of mental Gordian knot. Seems to me that it makes for a rather grim existential prognosis for the generations on the immediate horizon. Actually, Scott is just quoting from the MMM, hehe. Yes, in theory, that's what the scientific method is all about. But I rather think that's always only been an ideal. Also, there's always been an esoteric science that actually did look inward. Pythagoras comes to mind here. And the way I see it, as the collective consciousness keeps expanding, esoteric science is slowly becoming mainstream. So I'm rather optimistic. But a lot of folks will have some rude awakenings in terms of collapsing beliefs. The case could actually be made that what is esoteric science now has actually been mainstream science in the distant past. "MMM"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Beliefs
Jun 10, 2018 11:16:23 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 11:16:23 GMT -5
It's well said. Science shares a certain abstract similarity to neti-neti, to seeing the false, as false. But science is a process of belief swapping, while the process of becoming conscious is that of noticing beliefs for what they are, seeing them with clarity, and not replacing them with anything else. Science looks outward, collectively, but self-inquiry, is not that. As someone who started out a long time ago as an atheist, there was no God-baggage to get rid of. But the secular humanist beliefs have specifically stood the tests of time. This is what the scientific method is all about: re-think, question, challenge, and acknowledge what the observations reveal as the truth. Science-based beliefs are the best that can be bought with the coin of intellect. The flexibility of allowing for future knowns to eventually emerge from the unknown folds it all over into a sort of mental Gordian knot. Seems to me that it makes for a rather grim existential prognosis for the generations on the immediate horizon. Actually, Scott is just quoting from the MMM, hehe. Yes, in theory, that's what the scientific method is all about. But I rather think that's always only been an ideal. Also, there's always been an esoteric science that actually did look inward. Pythagoras comes to mind here. And the way I see it, as the collective consciousness keeps expanding, esoteric science is slowly becoming mainstream. So I'm rather optimistic. But a lot of folks will have some rude awakenings in terms of collapsing beliefs. The case could actually be made that what is esoteric science now has actually been mainstream science in the distant past. Monkey Mind Manual? I don't believe most humans share the view that Scott Adams describes. I am reminded of my neighbor who asked if I'd heard that Obama was going to start putting white people in concentration camps after the 2008 election or my other neighbor who believes the rapture is imminent so why bother recycling or the many cultures throughout the world where gay individuals put their lives at risk by merely being themselves. I would argue that science or a fact based approach to how we live is under assault. Part of it is science is a victim of its own success. Though great technological strides have been made, when applied to human behavior, the scientific approach has had less spectacular results. I am not a logical positivist, a materialist. It seems to me to be so requires more faith than I am capable of. I am skeptical that the current scientific mind set can overcome some of the hurdles presented by much of the data that they have an inclination to ignore, but compared with most of the regresssive forces now aligned against it, there is a danger that what supplants scientific thinking could be disastrous.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Jun 11, 2018 6:47:31 GMT -5
Post by preciocho on Jun 11, 2018 6:47:31 GMT -5
"The common worldview, shared by most humans, is that there is one objective reality, and we humans can understand that reality through a rigorous application of facts and reason. This view of the world imagines that some people have already achieved a fact-based type of enlightenment that is compatible with science and logic, and they are trying to help the rest of us see the world the 'right' way. As far as I can tell, most people share that interpretation of the world. The only wrinkle with that worldview is that we all think we are the enlightened ones. And we assume the people who disagree with us just need better facts, and perhaps better brains, in order to agree with us. That filter on life makes most of us happy-because we see ourselves as the smart ones-and it does a good job of predicting the future, but only because confirmation bias (our tendency to interpret data as supporting our views) will make the future look any way we want it to look, within reason." - Scott AdamsIt's well said. Science shares a certain abstract similarity to neti-neti, to seeing the false, as false. But science is a process of belief swapping, while the process of becoming conscious is that of noticing beliefs for what they are, seeing them with clarity, and not replacing them with anything else. Science looks outward, collectively, but self-inquiry, is not that. As someone who started out a long time ago as an atheist, there was no God-baggage to get rid of. But the secular humanist beliefs have specifically stood the tests of time. This is what the scientific method is all about: re-think, question, challenge, and acknowledge what the observations reveal as the truth. Science-based beliefs are the best that can be bought with the coin of intellect. The flexibility of allowing for future knowns to eventually emerge from the unknown folds it all over into a sort of mental Gordian knot. Seems to me that it makes for a rather grim existential prognosis for the generations on the immediate horizon. Maharaj once wondered if nature's laws could be violated, yet at the same time embodied the realization that the universe, or maybe we should say existence, is essentially causeless and non dual. The presupposition that you exist in a framework bound by causes and limited to effects isn't true, and yet as human thinkers we remain slaves to what we don't know or understand, in some cases blissfully so. Many teachers and even psychics have foreseen the collapse of modern civilization, but really, if we are to turn up the heat on those who willfully exploit others for personal gain, greater consciousness is all that's necessary. Considering the widespread addiction of wanting to be told how to think or what to do, maybe freedom from unconscious thinking is the least desired thing on the planet. That freedom from thought is ultimately undesirable doesn't prevent intelligence from imbuing the idea with a spiritual force. True, personal freedom from collective unconsciousness is a fear based idea stemming from the potential of our own minds to conceptualize the witness as separate or apart. But if that's the most common sequence in the seeker's mind, so be it.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Jun 13, 2018 0:07:26 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Jun 13, 2018 0:07:26 GMT -5
Actually, Scott is just quoting from the MMM, hehe. Yes, in theory, that's what the scientific method is all about. But I rather think that's always only been an ideal. Also, there's always been an esoteric science that actually did look inward. Pythagoras comes to mind here. And the way I see it, as the collective consciousness keeps expanding, esoteric science is slowly becoming mainstream. So I'm rather optimistic. But a lot of folks will have some rude awakenings in terms of collapsing beliefs. The case could actually be made that what is esoteric science now has actually been mainstream science in the distant past. Monkey Mind Manual? I don't believe most humans share the view that Scott Adams describes. I am reminded of my neighbor who asked if I'd heard that Obama was going to start putting white people in concentration camps after the 2008 election or my other neighbor who believes the rapture is imminent so why bother recycling or the many cultures throughout the world where gay individuals put their lives at risk by merely being themselves. I would argue that science or a fact based approach to how we live is under assault. Part of it is science is a victim of its own success. Though great technological strides have been made, when applied to human behavior, the scientific approach has had less spectacular results. I am not a logical positivist, a materialist. It seems to me to be so requires more faith than I am capable of. I am skeptical that the current scientific mind set can overcome some of the hurdles presented by much of the data that they have an inclination to ignore, but compared with most of the regresssive forces now aligned against it, there is a danger that what supplants scientific thinking could be disastrous. Scott's main premise is that people are not rational beings. They only give themselves (and others) the appearance of rationality. Which means you'll usually have better chances convincing someone with fiction than with facts. Another premise is that there are many versions of reality and that everyone is choosing his/her version and then perceives, rationalizes and acts accordingly. In that sense, I think his observations are pretty accurate. I've seen this playing out on the forum as well. Scott was also one of the very few people who predicted the Trump presidency very early on. And he keeps being pretty accurate with his predictions about current events as well. So this approach certainly has merit. I think the problem with the scientific approach today is that people want to apply it universally, as some kind of universal litmus test. And that is quite amusing in a way, but has rather tragic consequences, too. What has to be realized is that the scientific view (as well as the religious view) is just one possible view on reality among many others. And I see that already happening on many fronts.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Jun 13, 2018 5:36:16 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jun 13, 2018 5:36:16 GMT -5
It's well said. Science shares a certain abstract similarity to neti-neti, to seeing the false, as false. But science is a process of belief swapping, while the process of becoming conscious is that of noticing beliefs for what they are, seeing them with clarity, and not replacing them with anything else. Science looks outward, collectively, but self-inquiry, is not that. As someone who started out a long time ago as an atheist, there was no God-baggage to get rid of. But the secular humanist beliefs have specifically stood the tests of time. This is what the scientific method is all about: re-think, question, challenge, and acknowledge what the observations reveal as the truth. Science-based beliefs are the best that can be bought with the coin of intellect. The flexibility of allowing for future knowns to eventually emerge from the unknown folds it all over into a sort of mental Gordian knot. Seems to me that it makes for a rather grim existential prognosis for the generations on the immediate horizon. Maharaj once wondered if nature's laws could be violated, yet at the same time embodied the realization that the universe, or maybe we should say existence, is essentially causeless and non dual. The presupposition that you exist in a framework bound by causes and limited to effects isn't true, and yet as human thinkers we remain slaves to what we don't know or understand, in some cases blissfully so. Many teachers and even psychics have foreseen the collapse of modern civilization, but really, if we are to turn up the heat on those who willfully exploit others for personal gain, greater consciousness is all that's necessary. Considering the widespread addiction of wanting to be told how to think or what to do, maybe freedom from unconscious thinking is the least desired thing on the planet. That freedom from thought is ultimately undesirable doesn't prevent intelligence from imbuing the idea with a spiritual force. True, personal freedom from collective unconsciousness is a fear based idea stemming from the potential of our own minds to conceptualize the witness as separate or apart. But if that's the most common sequence in the seeker's mind, so be it. Cause/effect has it's uses. There's no denying the exploitation is happening, but using the four noble truths we can take the anchor of morality out of this acceptance. People really do suffer, and that's yet another -- a third -- use of the word "real" . Psychics have been predicting the end of the world for a long time. History suggests that eventually broken clock syndrome will make one of them right about the current round of global civilization, but the structures underlying it have proven quite resilient even long before either of us were born. I'm sure that if you asked some of the peeps at the top of the pyramid they'd take credit for that relative historical stability. But, nah. The fallacy is that they were, personally, the source of the decisions that have kept the lights on and the trains running for all these years instead of just particular foci of various movements of consciousness. This isn't to discourage action in opposition to the 1%. That's just another, different foci of consciousness moving. And for all the suffering that greed has caused in this world, I'm quite acutely aware of just how lucky I've had it here. No Roman emperor ever spoke on a phone, drove a car, was taught about the mysteries of the physical Universe, caught dozens of runs in a single day on a sweet long hill covered with freshy, or watched a TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Beliefs
Jun 13, 2018 7:54:11 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 7:54:11 GMT -5
Monkey Mind Manual? I don't believe most humans share the view that Scott Adams describes. I am reminded of my neighbor who asked if I'd heard that Obama was going to start putting white people in concentration camps after the 2008 election or my other neighbor who believes the rapture is imminent so why bother recycling or the many cultures throughout the world where gay individuals put their lives at risk by merely being themselves. I would argue that science or a fact based approach to how we live is under assault. Part of it is science is a victim of its own success. Though great technological strides have been made, when applied to human behavior, the scientific approach has had less spectacular results. I am not a logical positivist, a materialist. It seems to me to be so requires more faith than I am capable of. I am skeptical that the current scientific mind set can overcome some of the hurdles presented by much of the data that they have an inclination to ignore, but compared with most of the regresssive forces now aligned against it, there is a danger that what supplants scientific thinking could be disastrous. Scott's main premise is that people are not rational beings. They only give themselves (and others) the appearance of rationality. Which means you'll usually have better chances convincing someone with fiction than with facts. Another premise is that there are many versions of reality and that everyone is choosing his/her version and then perceives, rationalizes and acts accordingly. In that sense, I think his observations are pretty accurate. I've seen this playing out on the forum as well. Scott was also one of the very few people who predicted the Trump presidency very early on. And he keeps being pretty accurate with his predictions about current events as well. So this approach certainly has merit. I think the problem with the scientific approach today is that people want to apply it universally, as some kind of universal litmus test. And that is quite amusing in a way, but has rather tragic consequences, too. What has to be realized is that the scientific view (as well as the religious view) is just one possible view on reality among many others. And I see that already happening on many fronts. We all have our prejudices and views. I'm trying quite unsuccessfully to let go of mine.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Jun 13, 2018 9:38:12 GMT -5
Post by preciocho on Jun 13, 2018 9:38:12 GMT -5
Maharaj once wondered if nature's laws could be violated, yet at the same time embodied the realization that the universe, or maybe we should say existence, is essentially causeless and non dual. The presupposition that you exist in a framework bound by causes and limited to effects isn't true, and yet as human thinkers we remain slaves to what we don't know or understand, in some cases blissfully so. Many teachers and even psychics have foreseen the collapse of modern civilization, but really, if we are to turn up the heat on those who willfully exploit others for personal gain, greater consciousness is all that's necessary. Considering the widespread addiction of wanting to be told how to think or what to do, maybe freedom from unconscious thinking is the least desired thing on the planet. That freedom from thought is ultimately undesirable doesn't prevent intelligence from imbuing the idea with a spiritual force. True, personal freedom from collective unconsciousness is a fear based idea stemming from the potential of our own minds to conceptualize the witness as separate or apart. But if that's the most common sequence in the seeker's mind, so be it. Cause/effect has it's uses. There's no denying the exploitation is happening, but using the four noble truths we can take the anchor of morality out of this acceptance. People really do suffer, and that's yet another -- a third -- use of the word "real" . Psychics have been predicting the end of the world for a long time. History suggests that eventually broken clock syndrome will make one of them right about the current round of global civilization, but the structures underlying it have proven quite resilient even long before either of us were born. I'm sure that if you asked some of the peeps at the top of the pyramid they'd take credit for that relative historical stability. But, nah. The fallacy is that they were, personally, the source of the decisions that have kept the lights on and the trains running for all these years instead of just particular foci of various movements of consciousness. This isn't to discourage action in opposition to the 1%. That's just another, different foci of consciousness moving. And for all the suffering that greed has caused in this world, I'm quite acutely aware of just how lucky I've had it here. No Roman emperor ever spoke on a phone, drove a car, was taught about the mysteries of the physical Universe, caught dozens of runs in a single day on a sweet long hill covered with freshy, or watched a TV. I would say the most interesting thing about cause and effect is the idea of causal emotion, that one's experience, and more pointedly, how one conceptualizes everything that happens, seems to possess a direct relation to other things that happen. Of course, seeing everything that happens is actually the conceptualization of everything that happens can be somewhat disillusioning, but we're talking the debilitating effects of unconsciousness and how folks perpetuate unhappiness by seeking happiness in the compensation for lack of awareness. As far as the upper 1% and top level controllers, it's not all bad, of course. There are seers and sages that have demonstrated bravery and earnestness in the loss of identification, and it is one's own resonance with these qualities that we share as common bonds to a source that is beyond attributes. The manner in which the enlightened ascend the tower of control is through allowing light to destroy or awaken the darkness within oneself. Which is to say, the only true freedom from the pyramid of control is in its transcendance, which provides preferable alignment or interface because the ideas causing misalignment (which are the misalignment in a way) are not present.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 14, 2018 5:08:02 GMT -5
Cause/effect has it's uses. There's no denying the exploitation is happening, but using the four noble truths we can take the anchor of morality out of this acceptance. People really do suffer, and that's yet another -- a third -- use of the word "real" . Psychics have been predicting the end of the world for a long time. History suggests that eventually broken clock syndrome will make one of them right about the current round of global civilization, but the structures underlying it have proven quite resilient even long before either of us were born. I'm sure that if you asked some of the peeps at the top of the pyramid they'd take credit for that relative historical stability. But, nah. The fallacy is that they were, personally, the source of the decisions that have kept the lights on and the trains running for all these years instead of just particular foci of various movements of consciousness. This isn't to discourage action in opposition to the 1%. That's just another, different foci of consciousness moving. And for all the suffering that greed has caused in this world, I'm quite acutely aware of just how lucky I've had it here. No Roman emperor ever spoke on a phone, drove a car, was taught about the mysteries of the physical Universe, caught dozens of runs in a single day on a sweet long hill covered with freshy, or watched a TV. I would say the most interesting thing about cause and effect is the idea of causal emotion, that one's experience, and more pointedly, how one conceptualizes everything that happens, seems to possess a direct relation to other things that happen. Of course, seeing everything that happens is actually the conceptualization of everything that happens can be somewhat disillusioning, but we're talking the debilitating effects of unconsciousness and how folks perpetuate unhappiness by seeking happiness in the compensation for lack of awareness. Yeah, I get your point here, and it's a rather delicate one to make, as in, without covering both sides of the aisle as you've done here the expression of it is imbalanced and incomplete. The flip side of the coin is that when you do cover both sides, it can become obscure, unless the reader is either deeply engaged in the writing or they have a really good feel for what you're writing about. Either self-realization or a profound enough oneness-experience has the potential to put the causes of emotion into perspective and facilitate an ongoing process of becoming conscious/RC. This is because they each alter the perspective on the nature of cause/effect generally. But the alteration is different in each case, and in either case there's still the issue of the informing of mind after the fact. From what I've picked up on from the historical material that's often shared on these forums, and the dynamics between the personalities happening on them, this issue is far from trivial. As far as the upper 1% and top level controllers, it's not all bad, of course. There are seers and sages that have demonstrated bravery and earnestness in the loss of identification, and it is one's own resonance with these qualities that we share as common bonds to a source that is beyond attributes. The manner in which the enlightened ascend the tower of control is through allowing light to destroy or awaken the darkness within oneself. Which is to say, the only true freedom from the pyramid of control is in its transcendance, which provides preferable alignment or interface because the ideas causing misalignment (which are the misalignment in a way) are not present. My time at the Tolle board was during the only time of conscious-existential seeking I've done in my life. A question that occurred to me then, and one that I perceive as fairly common among conscious seekers, is: "how can I stay Present with all these ego's constantly firing-off all around me?".
|
|
|
Beliefs
Jun 14, 2018 7:09:28 GMT -5
Post by preciocho on Jun 14, 2018 7:09:28 GMT -5
I would say the most interesting thing about cause and effect is the idea of causal emotion, that one's experience, and more pointedly, how one conceptualizes everything that happens, seems to possess a direct relation to other things that happen. Of course, seeing everything that happens is actually the conceptualization of everything that happens can be somewhat disillusioning, but we're talking the debilitating effects of unconsciousness and how folks perpetuate unhappiness by seeking happiness in the compensation for lack of awareness. Yeah, I get your point here, and it's a rather delicate one to make, as in, without covering both sides of the aisle as you've done here the expression of it is imbalanced and incomplete. The flip side of the coin is that when you do cover both sides, it can become obscure, unless the reader is either deeply engaged in the writing or they have a really good feel for what you're writing about. Either self-realization or a profound enough oneness-experience has the potential to put the causes of emotion into perspective and facilitate an ongoing process of becoming conscious/RC. This is because they each alter the perspective on the nature of cause/effect generally. But the alteration is different in each case, and in either case there's still the issue of the informing of mind after the fact. From what I've picked up on from the historical material that's often shared on these forums, and the dynamics between the personalities happening on them, this issue is far from trivial. As far as the upper 1% and top level controllers, it's not all bad, of course. There are seers and sages that have demonstrated bravery and earnestness in the loss of identification, and it is one's own resonance with these qualities that we share as common bonds to a source that is beyond attributes. The manner in which the enlightened ascend the tower of control is through allowing light to destroy or awaken the darkness within oneself. Which is to say, the only true freedom from the pyramid of control is in its transcendance, which provides preferable alignment or interface because the ideas causing misalignment (which are the misalignment in a way) are not present. My time at the Tolle board was during the only time of conscious-existential seeking I've done in my life. A question that occurred to me then, and one that I perceive as fairly common among conscious seekers, is: "how can I stay Present with all these ego's constantly firing-off all around me?". As far as self realization and oneness experiences affecting one's beliefs or understanding about cause and effect. I would say both have the potential to lead to beliefs that mesh with bypassing or not taking responsibility for one's emotional state. The link between cause and effect in the personal realm is the law of attraction, and it's not a God created law, but a conditional link programmed with the dna of how you feel (desire and desire fulfillment). Becoming conscious is possible because the human mind can become less than conscious. This less than conscious state is mind identification, and it is created through unconsciously choosing to emote in a certain way: this moment is not good enough, or I am not good enough because this moment is not making me feel how I want to feel. This type of dynamic opens the gateway for compartmentalization, the remarkable ability to blindly block out our feelings, project them through compensation, and then seek them in predictable drone like fashion as we become a more betterer person in the world of form. If you move next door to a sewer plant, there is a certain period of time where the smell stops bothering you. Essentially, you detune from the smell, and it's as if they aren't filtering your community's waste right next door. The same thing has happened with the human emotional state, in that folks are completely tuned out or turned away from what they have going on internally. Luckily, what happens externally is directly linked to what we have going on internally. Not because, ultimately speaking, the internal causes the external, but rather, the compartmentalized self, the personal unconscious, only exists because something happened in the world that led mind to turn away from it and compensate for it. Many atheists are dealing with precisely this complex, in that feelings of God abandonment are masked through the belief that there is no God. As the external mirrors the internal, as long as we unconsciously feel inferior, no superior condition will ever make us feel whole for more than a brief glimpse or a passing tide. Becoming conscious or healing the internal injuries we are carrying, alters the conditioned mechanism through which we experience creation. we align in a different way. We attract experience not in accordance with a need to compensate for injury, and as such, changes in experience, from uptime to downtime, can bring about an opportunity to relax, rather than a need to compensate for attachment because we just lost a moment we are attached to. This attraction or alignment, at the deepest level, is the act of creation, unraveling through the prism of self as the light of all eternity. If we call self realization the realization that one is the light of creation and yet is competely unbound by what is created, the mind or person through which we create and experience can still be completely detuned to how suffering is being perpetuated by unconsciousness. A oneness experience probably isn't going to help much either. A willingness to experience, stay humble, and understand can go a long way. And to the extent we are unwilling, or not humble, is to the same extent a correction mechanism is programmed into our experience.
|
|