Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 10:30:39 GMT -5
andrew would you say grokking formlessness might be 'more valuable' in terms of priority, getting your cards in order, than understanding how to manipulate form?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 10:42:02 GMT -5
andrew would you say grokking formlessness might be 'more valuable' in terms of priority, getting your cards in order, than understanding how to manipulate form? Yes. When Ive been on forums with manifesting sections, I have rarely contributed to them. And I see manipulation as kind of the 'Sith' version of manifesting. I have no interest in helping people earn more money or manifest a fancy car. I am interested in helping people remember, reunify, reconnect. I am interested in helping people to experience more love, joy and abundance in their lives. I am interested in helping people to expand their boundaries, to experience more of they are and to be their highest potential. I am interested in helping people to realize their highest dreams (and I havent yet come across someone whose highest dream is to have more money!) And I guess these are my interests because this is what I want for myself. In the end, manifesting is always happening. Do we have control of it? Whether its true that we do or dont, what is clear is that the ability to intend, to set goals, to make choices, to change the way we feel and to shift our focus, is present. It is clear that we have preferences. It is clear that we idealize. It is clear that we create problems and resolve them. These abilities are present and happening whether we want them to or not. I would say that for as long as they are happening, they can be used intelligently to help us to manifest a realization of our formless nature. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Jan 20, 2012 10:50:24 GMT -5
Yes. I would say we are pointing generally in the same direction but there are some slight variations, and we like to make war and peace out of these subtle variations. Its not like any of us are saying 'you have to have a lot of money in the bank to be happy'. I think whereas many people here point solely to formlessness, I point to formlessness AND form because I see value in acknowledging values, preferences, ambitions, goals and ideals. I see acknowledging these things as part of being present because all these things are happening anyway. Better to be conscious of them than pretend they arent there or try and stop them happening. It's not about what you see I'm talking about but how you see. There is conceptual seeing which is personal and there is non-conceptual seeing which is impersonal. You are too obsessed with content so that you are unaware of the process. When ZD talks about no here and there, no identity, no space, no time you probably imagine formless black nothingness or something like that. And that just doesn't make sense. So content obsessed entities like you and Tath get the idea that coming full circle, embracing both formless and form will do the trick. But you are missing the point entirely. I'm not pointing into some higher dimension. Forget content for a while, forget what you see. Talk about how you see instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jan 20, 2012 11:05:48 GMT -5
Just to clarify, if I may, Andrew--to you, then, there is really nothing beyond (or 'prior to', or whatever) the three-dimensional universe. What you see is what you get. Is that right? I dunno abount the '3 dimensions' bit but if I just leave that aside, I would say that its not that there is nothing other than Mind/universe. There is Being and Mind but they are inextricably linked, interwoven and non-separate. The reason I say 'its all Mind' is to point away from the search for an enlightened state and to point away from the idea that its possible to stand on the riverbank and passively and neutrally and separately observe creation go by. Having said that, creating the illusion of standing on the bank can be a useful thing to do sometimes. Okay, so if Being and Mind are linked, interwoven and non-separate, then Being, to you, isn't abstract , and so nothing is abstract (which would explain why several times, you've nearly chided me for saying something abstract  ). Just trying to pidgeonhole you is all, Andrew.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 11:06:08 GMT -5
Yes. I would say we are pointing generally in the same direction but there are some slight variations, and we like to make war and peace out of these subtle variations. Its not like any of us are saying 'you have to have a lot of money in the bank to be happy'. I think whereas many people here point solely to formlessness, I point to formlessness AND form because I see value in acknowledging values, preferences, ambitions, goals and ideals. I see acknowledging these things as part of being present because all these things are happening anyway. Better to be conscious of them than pretend they arent there or try and stop them happening. It's not about what you see I'm talking about but how you see. There is conceptual seeing which is personal and there is non-conceptual seeing which is impersonal. You are too obsessed with content so that you are unaware of the process. When ZD talks about no here and there, no identity, no space, no time you probably imagine formless black nothingness or something like that. And that just doesn't make sense. So content obsessed entities like you and Tath get the idea that coming full circle, embracing both formless and form will do the trick. But you are missing the point entirely. I'm not pointing into some higher dimension. Forget content for a while, forget what you see. Talk about how you see instead. I do talk about the how. This is what I meant by the approach or the way. I do non-conceptually see which is another way of talking about no-mind or non-attachment. What this means to me is being flexible in my seeing. It means not being attached to the truth or falsity of any one seeing. So I dont imagine formless black nothingness or something like that when ZD talks about those things. I just see a lot of pointing to something which is blindingly obvious in its apparency. It may have value as a pointer to some, but its a bit lost (unnecessary) with me. Having said that, I understand that ZD thinks I am hopelessly abiding in mind, and I can see why he thinks that. I find the way you organize interesting. I see understandings but I dont experience from you a sense that you are connecting to people. I experience from you a sense that you are keeping yourself apart and separate. And I am interested in how you do that, if you do that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 11:14:23 GMT -5
I dunno abount the '3 dimensions' bit but if I just leave that aside, I would say that its not that there is nothing other than Mind/universe. There is Being and Mind but they are inextricably linked, interwoven and non-separate. The reason I say 'its all Mind' is to point away from the search for an enlightened state and to point away from the idea that its possible to stand on the riverbank and passively and neutrally and separately observe creation go by. Having said that, creating the illusion of standing on the bank can be a useful thing to do sometimes. Okay, so if Being and Mind are linked, interwoven and non-separate, then Being, to you, isn't abstract , and so nothing is abstract (which would explain why several times, you've nearly chided me for saying something abstract ). Just trying to pidgeonhole you is all, Andrew. Haha thats okay. Yes, thats basically right, and yes, I find it a little hard to connect to people when they are trying to achieve something that isnt something that most humans have at least some kind of reference for. In the end, Im not really trying to help people experience something different, Im trying to help people find a way of experiencing more of what they know they like! We have all had moments of joy, and bliss, and love, and wonder, and clarity, and awe. We even know what its like to be present and to be secure. We just dont know how to do it consistently. Our conditioned approach is all wrong and to make matters work our conditioned approach tells us not to change our approach...d'oh! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 11:18:01 GMT -5
andrew would you say grokking formlessness might be 'more valuable' in terms of priority, getting your cards in order, than understanding how to manipulate form? Yes. When Ive been on forums with manifesting sections, I have rarely contributed to them. And I see manipulation as kind of the 'Sith' version of manifesting. I have no interest in helping people earn more money or manifest a fancy car. I am interested in helping people remember, reunify, reconnect. I am interested in helping people to experience more love, joy and abundance in their lives. I am interested in helping people to expand their boundaries, to experience more of they are and to be their highest potential. I am interested in helping people to realize their highest dreams (and I havent yet come across someone whose highest dream is to have more money!) And I guess these are my interests because this is what I want for myself. In the end, manifesting is always happening. Do we have control of it? Whether its true that we do or dont, what is clear is that the ability to intend, to set goals, to make choices, to change the way we feel and to shift our focus, is present. It is clear that we have preferences. It is clear that we idealize. It is clear that we create problems and resolve them. These abilities are present and happening whether we want them to or not. I would say that for as long as they are happening, they can be used intelligently to help us to manifest a realization of our formless nature. okay. whatever -- i'm still in babysteps mode. just one step at a time. sustained non-abidance in mind [or insert a better word of your preference] is how i toddle. falling down alot! |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Jan 20, 2012 11:20:58 GMT -5
It's not about what you see I'm talking about but how you see. There is conceptual seeing which is personal and there is non-conceptual seeing which is impersonal. You are too obsessed with content so that you are unaware of the process. When ZD talks about no here and there, no identity, no space, no time you probably imagine formless black nothingness or something like that. And that just doesn't make sense. So content obsessed entities like you and Tath get the idea that coming full circle, embracing both formless and form will do the trick. But you are missing the point entirely. I'm not pointing into some higher dimension. Forget content for a while, forget what you see. Talk about how you see instead. I do talk about the how. This is what I meant by the approach or the way. I do non-conceptually see which is another way of talking about no-mind or non-attachment. What this means to me is being flexible in my seeing. It means not being attached to the truth or falsity of any one seeing. So I dont imagine formless black nothingness or something like that when ZD talks about those things. I just see a lot of pointing to something which is blindingly obvious in its apparency. It may have value as a pointer to some, but its lost on me. I find the way you organize interesting. I see understandings but I dont experience from you a sense that you are connecting to people. I experience from you a sense that you are keeping yourself apart and separate. And I am interested in how you do that, if you do that. Whatever you think I'm pointing to is not 'it'. As it is said in the Daodejing, it cannot be talked about, what can be talked about is not it. And therefore it cannot be pointed to it either. The only thing that can be done is to stop the fruitless talking and pointing. That's where myth busters like enigma come into play.  What would connecting to people mean? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 11:23:35 GMT -5
What would connecting to people mean? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here...  perfect answer |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 11:24:26 GMT -5
Yes. When Ive been on forums with manifesting sections, I have rarely contributed to them. And I see manipulation as kind of the 'Sith' version of manifesting. I have no interest in helping people earn more money or manifest a fancy car. I am interested in helping people remember, reunify, reconnect. I am interested in helping people to experience more love, joy and abundance in their lives. I am interested in helping people to expand their boundaries, to experience more of they are and to be their highest potential. I am interested in helping people to realize their highest dreams (and I havent yet come across someone whose highest dream is to have more money!) And I guess these are my interests because this is what I want for myself. In the end, manifesting is always happening. Do we have control of it? Whether its true that we do or dont, what is clear is that the ability to intend, to set goals, to make choices, to change the way we feel and to shift our focus, is present. It is clear that we have preferences. It is clear that we idealize. It is clear that we create problems and resolve them. These abilities are present and happening whether we want them to or not. I would say that for as long as they are happening, they can be used intelligently to help us to manifest a realization of our formless nature. okay. whatever -- i'm still in babysteps mode. just one step at a time. sustained non-abidance in mind [or insert a better word of your preference] is how i toddle. falling down alot! I think you are much further down the pathless path than you think/portray. I also think that if you want to be consistently present then becoming very purposeful would be a helpful step. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2012 11:24:30 GMT -5
I'm open to whatever it is I'm not understanding about this, at least most of the time, but what I see clearly is experience itself 'erupting' out of nothingness as creation (and perception) itself, and it is nothing but imagination. It has no foundation outside of that, and so every experience is literally based on the imagining of it's opposite. Hencely, I see dualistic experience as inherent in ALL experiencing, and therefore unavoidable in any reality. I agree up to the point where you said 'outside of that'. I would say that every experience is based on there being a contrast. Currently though, because of the way our mind works, we imagine this contrast to be oppositional in nature but its not. The contrast is born out of what we could call 'love', the foundation is love and there is no opposite of 'love', even though it seems to us like there is. In this sense, love is all there is, and anything else is illusion. As human beings we basically live in delusion, and that includes the enlightened, though their degree of delusion is less. Therefore it is entirely possible to experience a reality in which the experience is one of unconditional love, but it would be a reality in which we no longer imagine opposites, a reality in which there is only resonance, only harmony, only 'yes', and only flow. The experience would still be based in contrast, but there would be no CONSCIOUS recognition or awareness of contrast because there would be no opposites imagined. There would be no 'this or that', no deliberation, no contemplation, no choosing......just expression. Basically, that sounds like what we talk about here every day, though perhaps with the focus on making it personal and calling it something other than enlightenment. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2012 11:36:17 GMT -5
I also think that if you want to be consistently present then becoming very purposeful would be a helpful step. see, i hear "becoming very purposeful", and all of a sudden it sounds like the Sith trying to sneak into my head a little. my toddling is focused on not using my head, just going with the flow, get used to the balance you know. my Macktruck dance style is because i'm too purposeful and not out of my head enough, for example. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 11:41:29 GMT -5
I do talk about the how. This is what I meant by the approach or the way. I do non-conceptually see which is another way of talking about no-mind or non-attachment. What this means to me is being flexible in my seeing. It means not being attached to the truth or falsity of any one seeing. So I dont imagine formless black nothingness or something like that when ZD talks about those things. I just see a lot of pointing to something which is blindingly obvious in its apparency. It may have value as a pointer to some, but its lost on me. I find the way you organize interesting. I see understandings but I dont experience from you a sense that you are connecting to people. I experience from you a sense that you are keeping yourself apart and separate. And I am interested in how you do that, if you do that. Whatever you think I'm pointing to is not 'it'. As it is said in the Daodejing, it cannot be talked about, what can be talked about is not it. And therefore it cannot be pointed to it either. The only thing that can be done is to stop the fruitless talking and pointing. That's where myth busters like enigma come into play. What would connecting to people mean? I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here... Yeah I really do get the whole pointing thing which is why I dont really point. I cant see the point hehe. Actually, I do point, but just not very abstractly. What I mean about the connecting thing...hmmm....well, I can only talk about the way that I experience you and it is subjective of course. On one hand you seem like a likeable chap with good intentions and a good heart. But then I also get a sense of impersonalness more than I do personalness. So it feels like you are standing slightly apart, standing back, not wanting to get too involved. It comes across to me slightly as if you think you are part of a club. So I kind of think you organize in such a way which enables you to keep your head above the waters of unconsciousness. I can relate to that, but for me, I get greater reward out of being of service even if it means getting messy and getting dirty. I like to get involved, I like intimacy, I like to bring barriers down not put them up. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 11:49:24 GMT -5
I also think that if you want to be consistently present then becoming very purposeful would be a helpful step. see, i hear "becoming very purposeful", and all of a sudden it sounds like the Sith trying to sneak into my head a little. my toddling is focused on not using my head, just going with the flow, get used to the balance you know. my Macktruck dance style is because i'm too purposeful and not out of my head enough, for example. Maybe best if I clarify what I meant by being purposeful then. It means 'being consciously intentional'. See the thing is that we are intentional beings. Every action we take comes from intention we set. The action follows the intention. If we are not being consciously intentional, then we are unconscious. Our conditioned patterns are governing our actions. Thats why I encourage people to look at what they really want, to look at their ambitions and values, to look at what they want from life. Its a way of breaking the conditioned patterns of intention. Our true values and ambitions come from within rather than from the mind. Its ENTIRELY possible (and actually quite likely) that the intention to achieve enlightenment is actually a conditioned intent, though it may not seem like it. Get really clear about what YOU want. About how YOU want to live. About what YOU want to experience. The information is in your heart. And I guarantee that the way you want to live and the person you really want to be is not Sith like in the slightest. Anyway, Im probably sounding a bit over the top and insane right now hehe...it just seems to be one of those days. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 20, 2012 11:51:21 GMT -5
I agree up to the point where you said 'outside of that'. I would say that every experience is based on there being a contrast. Currently though, because of the way our mind works, we imagine this contrast to be oppositional in nature but its not. The contrast is born out of what we could call 'love', the foundation is love and there is no opposite of 'love', even though it seems to us like there is. In this sense, love is all there is, and anything else is illusion. As human beings we basically live in delusion, and that includes the enlightened, though their degree of delusion is less. Therefore it is entirely possible to experience a reality in which the experience is one of unconditional love, but it would be a reality in which we no longer imagine opposites, a reality in which there is only resonance, only harmony, only 'yes', and only flow. The experience would still be based in contrast, but there would be no CONSCIOUS recognition or awareness of contrast because there would be no opposites imagined. There would be no 'this or that', no deliberation, no contemplation, no choosing......just expression. Basically, that sounds like what we talk about here every day, though perhaps with the focus on making it personal and calling it something other than enlightenment. What Im talking about is a world of peace. |
|
).
perfect answer
