|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2012 15:29:41 GMT -5
I can see it both ways, and whether its true or not that there is a choice over the thought, I think the relevant question is, what is the best way to see in order to get the results we prefer?
|
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Feb 5, 2012 15:51:40 GMT -5
I can see it both ways, and whether its true or not that there is a choice over the thought, I think the relevant question is, what is the best way to see in order to get the results we prefer? Why do you need a result ? And what kind of result ? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2012 16:26:13 GMT -5
I can see it both ways, and whether its true or not that there is a choice over the thought, I think the relevant question is, what is the best way to see in order to get the results we prefer? Why do you need a result ? And what kind of result ? Well...Im not quite suggesting I need a result as such...hmmm....what Im suggesting is that behaviours are produced in each and every moment. If we want to produce peaceful, loving and joyful behaviours, if we want to produce states of clarity, openness and honesty, then what is relevant is finding a way (or ways) of seeing that produce those behaviours. |
|
|
|
Post by desertrat on Feb 5, 2012 16:43:09 GMT -5
In one of the posts on this thread , some one said something like loa/creatie visualzation has no connection to spiritual enlighment . As I said in my earlier post , to make this work , to create what you want , you must be ably to clear your mind , reach deep medation , hold an image in your mind , ect to really do this you need to do some inner work . As to the source , in the book creative visualzation , they say its a being in the cosmos some where , I will re-read it and print what it says . desert rat
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2012 16:55:14 GMT -5
In one of the posts on this thread , some one said something like loa/creatie visualzation has no connection to spiritual enlighment . As I said in my earlier post , to make this work , to create what you want , you must be ably to clear your mind , reach deep medation , hold an image in your mind , ect to really do this you need to do some inner work . As to the source , in the book creative visualzation , they say its a being in the cosmos some where , I will re-read it and print what it says . desert rat yes, I resonate with what you are saying. I have done a lot of inner work...without having done that I dont think I would be able to clear my mind, reach deep meditation and hold an image. I will keep an eye out for for your printing. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2012 17:21:56 GMT -5
It matters very much. As long as you believe you are the creator, you take on a delusional burden for your life that can become quite heavy, full of strategies for finding the one-ended stick that will make your life all happy. You must also judge yourself and others for failing to accomplish that, while also being concerned about the image you create in the eyes of others, which means you have to deny you're doing any of that and make it look like something else that you understand and nobody else does. You have to deny the truth because the truth will deny you. There are two ways to live; conscious and awake or unconscious and asleep. Creating is not your job. Oh, I agree that BELIEVING that you are the creator is attachment, and I havent said I believe that. There is no such thing as a one ended stick by definition, and a two ended stick is the delusion/illusion of a third dimensional reality of conditional love. I have faith in the existence of a reality of unconditional love. If you want to talk in terms of two ways, I would say we are living as a conscious/awake creator or as an unconscious/asleep creator. If we are only talking in two ways, and not three, I would have to put passive creating (the illusion of standing on the riverbank) in with unconscious/asleep. Its still a useful step though. I would say that it might be true that creating is my job and it might be true that creating isnt my job. Its not that relevant. What is relevant is the experience. What I mean by standing on the river bank has nothing to do with creating. It has a lot to do with noticing, though. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2012 17:24:08 GMT -5
You can't have it both ways. Either you are a conscious creator or you are not. I would say that we are either experiencing conscious creating or we are not. Whether its actually true or not that there is a subjective creator isnt that important. So basically, you're looking for a nice place to sleep? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 5, 2012 17:27:04 GMT -5
I can see it both ways, and whether its true or not that there is a choice over the thought, I think the relevant question is, what is the best way to see in order to get the results we prefer? I don't get the 'best way to see' thing. To me, either we see or we don't see. We may see some things, and not see some things, but clarity is clarity, as far as I can see (if you'll pardon the pun). That there are different 'ways' of seeing seems to suggest that all we have to do is change beliefs about something, and the whole belief thing simply doesn't ring true to me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2012 17:45:49 GMT -5
I can see it both ways, and whether its true or not that there is a choice over the thought, I think the relevant question is, what is the best way to see in order to get the results we prefer? I don't get the 'best way to see' thing. To me, either we see or we don't see. We may see some things, and not see some things, but clarity is clarity, as far as I can see (if you'll pardon the pun). That there are different 'ways' of seeing seems to suggest that all we have to do is change beliefs about something, and the whole belief thing simply doesn't ring true to me. I dont know if this will 'clarify' but to me, clarity isnt about what we see, clarity is a quality that comes with non-attachment i.e. the ability to shift our point of view easily, fluidly and flexibly. To give some examples.... for the most part as I go about my day, I see selves. But if I want to I can also see no selves. Equally, for the most part I see choosers. But if I want to I can see no choosers. I can also see responsibility and no responsibility. I can also see time and no time. I can also see paths and no paths. I can see the value of practices and the futility of practices. I can see that awareness is prior to the object and I can see that awareness is not separate to the object. I can see that no belief is True and I can also see that ultimately its ALL True. I can see that there is no right and wrong action and I can also see that there is right and wrong action. I can see that all beliefs are equally false and I can see that some beliefs are more false than others. Different things are worth seeing at different times depending on whats going on and who Im talking to etc...I am happy with contradiction, dichotomy and paradox. I am happy to see one thing one minute and see in a completely oppositional way the next minute. So I change the way I see depending on what I am interested in creating. For me, there is freedom in this. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2012 17:51:49 GMT -5
To put another way, I am not interested in the truth/falsity of matters, I am interested in the quality of the experience. I am only interested in the truth/falsity of a matter to the degree that is affects the quality of the experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2012 18:11:06 GMT -5
That one is the creator or cause for a change seen in the world is mostly a paradigm which is originated in ACIM. In A Course in Miracles it is stated through the entire book that the dreamer of the dream is the cause for what is happening in the dream. But ACIM is terrible based on a dualism between the dreamer and god. E.g. the dreamer itsself is a creation of god, so it sounds strange that a creation can make choices in which the direction of the dream keeps going. Sometimes it really is shattering how thoughts manifest themselves in the world, this gives one the feeling that the thought is the cause for the change seen in the world. But you had no choice over the thought itself.  Zackly. The person is, itself, a creation, and the thoughts correlate with the sensory experience because it's all part of the same creation. In mind identification, the thoughts in mind are mentally separated from the sense perceptions and it's easy to believe one causes the other. Thoughts don't actually create experience, regardless of where they come from. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 5, 2012 18:14:24 GMT -5
To put another way, I am not interested in the truth/falsity of matters, I am interested in the quality of the experience. I am only interested in the truth/falsity of a matter to the degree that is affects the quality of the experience. Two questions, then-- --doesn't 'quality' imply a dualist projection (i.e., either a 'good' or 'bad' experience)? --why is experience itself so important to you? What do you have to gain from experience? And whatever it is, isn't it gain, nonetheless, the focus on which is egocentric? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 5, 2012 18:19:31 GMT -5
To put another way, I am not interested in the truth/falsity of matters, I am interested in the quality of the experience. I am only interested in the truth/falsity of a matter to the degree that is affects the quality of the experience. This is the mode of nearly 7 billion peeps, so you're in good company. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2012 18:28:01 GMT -5
To put another way, I am not interested in the truth/falsity of matters, I am interested in the quality of the experience. I am only interested in the truth/falsity of a matter to the degree that is affects the quality of the experience. Two questions, then-- --doesn't 'quality' imply a dualist projection (i.e., either a 'good' or 'bad' experience)? --why is experience itself so important to you? What do you have to gain from experience? And whatever it is, isn't it gain, nonetheless, the focus on which is egocentric? Experience is important to me because thats all there is. There is only experiencing, and every action we take is with the intent of improving the quality of our experience. We are fundamentally selfish in that way. We cannot act outside of our best interests, even when our actions are selfless. I totally advocate selfless action, but thats because the quality of the experience is so good! I totally advocate putting the totality above the individual, but thats because it is ultimately IN the interest of the individual experiencer to do so. A joyful and loving experience is one in which we are entirely selfless in one way and entirely selfish in another. There may be no thoughts of the self, yet our action serves the self in the highest possible way. Its the law of giving and receiving, receiving and giving. Love in action. I dont have an issue with the idea of good and bad feelings or good and bad experiences though I see that at the highest level there is no good and bad. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 5, 2012 18:33:35 GMT -5
To put another way, I am not interested in the truth/falsity of matters, I am interested in the quality of the experience. I am only interested in the truth/falsity of a matter to the degree that is affects the quality of the experience. This is the mode of nearly 7 billion peeps, so you're in good company. I disagree. I would say that 7 billion peeps are highly interested in the truth/falsity of matters. Thats how the belief in an external objective reality is perpetuated. When people consciously value their experience MORE than they do the truth/falsity of matters, there will be widespread peace. People fight only over the truth/falsity of matters....religion, politics, nation states, status, education....you name it. Even on here we only fight over the truth/falsity of matters. |
|
