Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 12:05:33 GMT -5
When we say you are not a person, are we really saying you are not just a person? In other words, I can see personhood is an illusion from the standpoint of science -- probability fields and patterning -- it is a proverbial appearance. So there is an infinitude of appearances that go in the 'what you are not' column. In the what you are column goes mostly ineffable unmentionables and such, perhaps best illustrated with ______ or maybe THIS or whatever flavor of the day you want. Basically we can only really talk about what you are not. However, I'm assuming that there's a paradox at play in that THIS or whatever includes everything in the 'what you are not' column as well. Hence including 'just' in the above. What you are is both emptiness and form. But since most of us have identified fully with form, the pointer is to shift towards emptiness. But when you get down to it, the form can't be separated out from emptiness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2013 12:50:50 GMT -5
When we say you are not a person, are we really saying you are not just a person? In other words, I can see personhood is an illusion from the standpoint of science -- probability fields and patterning -- it is a proverbial appearance. So there is an infinitude of appearances that go in the 'what you are not' column. In the what you are column goes mostly ineffable unmentionables and such, perhaps best illustrated with ______ or maybe THIS or whatever flavor of the day you want. Basically we can only really talk about what you are not. However, I'm assuming that there's a paradox at play in that THIS or whatever includes everything in the 'what you are not' column as well. Hence including 'just' in the above. What you are is both emptiness and form. But since most of us have identified fully with form, the pointer is to shift towards emptiness. But when you get down to it, the form can't be separated out from emptiness. Right, but the fact that Tzu likes your post scares me. Hehe. What you're describing is the full circle thingy, but be sure to include all individuated expressions equally because now you're approaching THIS from an impersonal perspective. IOW, you are not more Max than you are Enigma.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 12:58:40 GMT -5
When we say you are not a person, are we really saying you are not just a person? In other words, I can see personhood is an illusion from the standpoint of science -- probability fields and patterning -- it is a proverbial appearance. So there is an infinitude of appearances that go in the 'what you are not' column. In the what you are column goes mostly ineffable unmentionables and such, perhaps best illustrated with ______ or maybe THIS or whatever flavor of the day you want. Basically we can only really talk about what you are not. However, I'm assuming that there's a paradox at play in that THIS or whatever includes everything in the 'what you are not' column as well. Hence including 'just' in the above. What you are is both emptiness and form. But since most of us have identified fully with form, the pointer is to shift towards emptiness. But when you get down to it, the form can't be separated out from emptiness. Right, but the fact that Tzu likes your post scares me. Hehe. What you're describing is the full circle thingy, but be sure to include all individuated expressions equally because now you're approaching THIS from an impersonal perspective. IOW, you are not more Max than you are Enigma. My impression is that the full circle thingy is mentioned derisively for the most part. Is that because peeps have returned but still have not fully transcended the personal perspective? It's more like a have-cake-and-eat-it-too syndrome? It's a good caution. This is probably where understanding is mistaken as realization.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 13:37:13 GMT -5
When we say you are not a person, are we really saying you are not just a person? In other words, I can see personhood is an illusion from the standpoint of science -- probability fields and patterning -- it is a proverbial appearance. So there is an infinitude of appearances that go in the 'what you are not' column. In the what you are column goes mostly ineffable unmentionables and such, perhaps best illustrated with ______ or maybe THIS or whatever flavor of the day you want. Basically we can only really talk about what you are not. However, I'm assuming that there's a paradox at play in that THIS or whatever includes everything in the 'what you are not' column as well. Hence including 'just' in the above. What you are is both emptiness and form. But since most of us have identified fully with form, the pointer is to shift towards emptiness. But when you get down to it, the form can't be separated out from emptiness.Beautifully stated Max. When one is still attached to form, and a set identity and storyline is still very much being held to, it's very important that the pointer shifts towards emptiness, for it is precisely attachment to form (in all its myriad of shapes) that is creating the perception of life being problematic, of there being something 'out there' that needs to be sought and attained in order for everything to be okay, and of limitation itself. Once that has been seen though, (that we are more than 'just' form) and all attachments to form have fallen away, that over-alignment itself, also falls away. There's no need anymore to point in any one direction, to over-align with a particular perspective. In this falling away, There is just 'this' and no need to say what it is....or isn't for that matter. Really, It's only when life is deemed to be problematic that such a question even arises. From this position, (and yeah...it IS what I refer to as 'full circle' ) the whole conceptual dividing line between 'personal vs. impersonal' falls away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 28, 2013 13:48:05 GMT -5
Right, but the fact that Tzu likes your post scares me. Hehe. What you're describing is the full circle thingy, but be sure to include all individuated expressions equally because now you're approaching THIS from an impersonal perspective. IOW, you are not more Max than you are Enigma. My impression is that the full circle thingy is mentioned derisively for the most part. Is that because peeps have returned but still have not fully transcended the personal perspective? It's more like a have-cake-and-eat-it-too syndrome? It's a good caution. This is probably where understanding is mistaken as realization. It's pretty easy to tell whether this understanding is merely conceptual. Is there still seeking? Is life still full of problems to be solved? The hallmark of full circle is a marked difference in experience. Identities and story-lines can still be 'donned' much in the same way that costumes and characters are taken on and then easily shed in a stage play, but the difference is, there's no attachment in the sense that we believe the character is who we are, nor the script is THE 'true' story. What changes is there is no longer need...no longer attachment to being any character or to any story. There's no longer anything at stake. The result of that, is life is no longer regarded to be problematic. There is nothing to seek, nothing to find, nothing deemed to be 'wrong' with 'this' present moment of experience.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 28, 2013 13:55:36 GMT -5
Right, but the fact that Tzu likes your post scares me. Hehe. What you're describing is the full circle thingy, but be sure to include all individuated expressions equally because now you're approaching THIS from an impersonal perspective. IOW, you are not more Max than you are Enigma. My impression is that the full circle thingy is mentioned derisively for the most part. Is that because peeps have returned but still have not fully transcended the personal perspective? It's more like a have-cake-and-eat-it-too syndrome? It's a good caution. This is probably where understanding is mistaken as realization. Yes, mostly Reefs and myself have rejected the claims of some to have come full circle in the way that the idea was intended to mean, which is the way you described it. It's a legit idea, but it can also be used to legitimize returning to the personal perspective as a kind of more expansive person. God is the person, but the person is not God.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 28, 2013 17:02:34 GMT -5
When we say you are not a person, are we really saying you are not just a person? In other words, I can see personhood is an illusion from the standpoint of science -- probability fields and patterning -- it is a proverbial appearance. So there is an infinitude of appearances that go in the 'what you are not' column. In the what you are column goes mostly ineffable unmentionables and such, perhaps best illustrated with ______ or maybe THIS or whatever flavor of the day you want. Basically we can only really talk about what you are not. However, I'm assuming that there's a paradox at play in that THIS or whatever includes everything in the 'what you are not' column as well. Hence including 'just' in the above. What you are is both emptiness and form. But since most of us have identified fully with form, the pointer is to shift towards emptiness. But when you get down to it, the form can't be separated out from emptiness. All forms of identity are ultimately false. To explore what you are not is simply to question everywhere you find solid ground. You clearly 'are' and so how do you truly embody what you are other than to stop pretending. Like water circling a drain, the exploration leads you into silence and your own innate authority.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 28, 2013 20:49:19 GMT -5
When we say you are not a person, are we really saying you are not just a person? In other words, I can see personhood is an illusion from the standpoint of science -- probability fields and patterning -- it is a proverbial appearance. So there is an infinitude of appearances that go in the 'what you are not' column. In the what you are column goes mostly ineffable unmentionables and such, perhaps best illustrated with ______ or maybe THIS or whatever flavor of the day you want. Basically we can only really talk about what you are not. However, I'm assuming that there's a paradox at play in that THIS or whatever includes everything in the 'what you are not' column as well. Hence including 'just' in the above. What you are is both emptiness and form. But since most of us have identified fully with form, the pointer is to shift towards emptiness. But when you get down to it, the form can't be separated out from emptiness. Nice Max. Wrote this to a friend a few months back ... repeated it once here and it's buried somewhere, apologize in advance if you saw it already. One interesting pointer that some state is that the subject cannot observe itself -- it's a simple argument: what you are can't be anything that appears to you. This gets one to the witness but then there is still the witness and what is witnessed. There is of course no valid description of the recognition of the illusion of the subject/object split because we have to use language and the underlying basis of language (or any means of communication, or any embodiment of information, for that matter) is this split. Likewise, the absence of separation is always the case, but projecting this state of affairs into terms the mind can get a grip on might describe the realization of that as an inflection point where neti-neti ends and "I am none of this" carries the same meaning as "I am all of this". On the full circle dealy -- the awe and the wonder evident at the inflection point make it pretty clear that the limited unique perspective has nothing to claim and nothing to take from the trip other than genuine humility and love.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 28, 2013 20:56:39 GMT -5
Greetings.. When we say you are not a person, are we really saying you are not just a person? In other words, I can see personhood is an illusion from the standpoint of science -- probability fields and patterning -- it is a proverbial appearance. So there is an infinitude of appearances that go in the 'what you are not' column. In the what you are column goes mostly ineffable unmentionables and such, perhaps best illustrated with ______ or maybe THIS or whatever flavor of the day you want. Basically we can only really talk about what you are not. However, I'm assuming that there's a paradox at play in that THIS or whatever includes everything in the 'what you are not' column as well. Hence including 'just' in the above. What you are is both emptiness and form. But since most of us have identified fully with form, the pointer is to shift towards emptiness. But when you get down to it, the form can't be separated out from emptiness. All forms of identity are ultimately false. To explore what you are not is simply to question everywhere you find solid ground. You clearly 'are' and so how do you truly embody what you are other than to stop pretending. Like water circling a drain, the exploration leads you into silence and your own innate authority. Hi Silence: Very nicely communicated, impressive clarity.. if i may, and our history suggests i may not, but.. the final sentence tends to contradict the clarity.. "the exploration" leads nowhere that the explorer doesn't choose to be led, hence "your own innate authority", and that 'authority' is not transferable to others.. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 11:41:16 GMT -5
My impression is that the full circle thingy is mentioned derisively for the most part. Is that because peeps have returned but still have not fully transcended the personal perspective? It's more like a have-cake-and-eat-it-too syndrome? It's a good caution. This is probably where understanding is mistaken as realization. It's pretty easy to tell whether this understanding is merely conceptual. Is there still seeking? Is life still full of problems to be solved? Well it seems like a hallmark must be a sense that it's 'easy to tell.' Because I don't seem to have reached that point yet. It's not easy for me to see if my questions and explorations are a form of seeking or just manifestations of curiosity and appreciation for precision in articulation and understanding. I don't see life as full of problems to be solved. That said there are conundrums here and there which are part of life -- do I go for a gas boiler or a pellet stove? What's a good way of wording a diplomatic email to family? These are small problems really, but I wouldn't say life is without problems. Also on the 'easy to tell' front, from my standpoint here on this forum, it seems like their is endless conversation between various members who apparently find it 'easy to tell' that another member is claiming to have come full circle but is still harboring an identity, howsoever perhaps more 'expanded' depending on the case. And so there is great back and forth about how it is so easy to tell who has come full circle and who has not, examples given up the wazoo. From my perspective, I really have no clue who is what. Certain styles of posting and contents appeal to me, but I take that as a tomato/tomahto thing and is ultimately just another subjective taste thingy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 11:49:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. All forms of identity are ultimately false. To explore what you are not is simply to question everywhere you find solid ground. You clearly 'are' and so how do you truly embody what you are other than to stop pretending. Like water circling a drain, the exploration leads you into silence and your own innate authority. Hi Silence: Very nicely communicated, impressive clarity.. if i may, and our history suggests i may not, but.. the final sentence tends to contradict the clarity.. "the exploration" leads nowhere that the explorer doesn't choose to be led, hence "your own innate authority", and that 'authority' is not transferable to others.. Be well.. I doubt that our friend silence is bound by history in who he converses with. I found his last sentence to make sense as it is. The 'exploration' does seem inevitable to me, and I'm okay with that. I don't think it matters much whether you apply choice or agency to that direction or not. Authority in the sense he was using it does not imply authority over others. I think of it more like groundedness. Is one's expression originating naturally from within, unique and authentic? Or is it couched in theories and concepts, founded on thinking? Not unlike how I understand your use of 'still mind.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 12:08:19 GMT -5
Well it seems like a hallmark must be a sense that it's 'easy to tell.' Because I don't seem to have reached that point yet. Fair enough...perhaps not as 'easy' as I said then. Guess all I can say is In my experience, when there was no more seeking, it was quite palpably felt as a falling away of a tension I did not even realize had been there....a release that went hand in hand with seeing that there was 'nothing more that needs to be done, figured out, seen or attained.' In terms of the idea of 'seeking' per se, It's really just a shift though from a sense that there is something 'more' that I'm not 'getting' or seeing, to a seeing that there is no-thing, no idea, no 'it' beyond this moment, TO get. Yes, from what I can see, all in all, you are very allowing/accepting. Sure, this stuff still presents. But nothing has the ability any more to draw attention to the point of losing sight of the inherent perfection, even in the arising of all of that stuff. (and....'perfect' does not necessarily mean that what's presenting aligns completely with preferences...preferences can co-exist alongside a foundational seeing that all is unfolding with perfection). Yes, when I said 'easy to tell' I was speaking more to a self inquiry....looking within AT self, not so much about looking outwards at others to decipher where they're at. Only YOU know for sure whether you are still seeking for something that you perceive to be still alluding you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 12:33:17 GMT -5
Well it seems like a hallmark must be a sense that it's 'easy to tell.' Because I don't seem to have reached that point yet. Fair enough...perhaps not as 'easy' as I said then. Guess all I can say is In my experience, when there was no more seeking, it was quite palpably felt as a falling away of a tension I did not even realize had been there....a release that went hand in hand with seeing that there was 'nothing more that needs to be done, figured out, seen or attained.' In terms of the idea of 'seeking' per se, It's really just a shift though from a sense that there is something 'more' that I'm not 'getting' or seeing, to a seeing that there is no-thing, no idea, no 'it' beyond this moment, TO get. Yes, from what I can see, all in all, you are very allowing/accepting. Allowing and accepting are two qualities of an enabler. This is why I'm still fond of 'FURTHER.' It's the skepticism that keeps on giving. Haha well I seem to break out in a rash all over with the word 'perfect,' despite your qualifications. Do you mean by perfection that what is happening can not be other than it is? If so, I get that. I just don't see how children dying foaming at the mouth and forthcoming innocents dying as 'collateral damage' can have 'perfect' faithfully applied. I suppose with your qualification I could say it's my preference that things are otherwise. But even then preference seems too light a word for this example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 14:01:04 GMT -5
Allowing and accepting are two qualities of an enabler. This is why I'm still fond of 'FURTHER.' It's the skepticism that keeps on giving. Yeah.....I use the words 'allowing/accepting' more to describe a way of being, than 'doings.' And I also understand the idea of 'further' or 'deepening' as I prefer to call it. & While there is no sense here of 'seeking' or 'trying/striving' for deepening, it does seem to be happening, nevertheless. Yup. That's it...I'd say though that the 'deepening' surrounding that seeing eventually moves towards actually loving/embracing 'what is.' Not in the way where we say, "Oh wow...kids dying, isn't that marvelous" or anything like that, but more just an overall love of life/experience itself. I see the difference between a need and a preference as; when a need is present, we will rail against 'what is' if it does not conform to our idea of how we'd like things to be. Needs result in emotional suffering. A preference on the other hand is how we'd 'like to see things,' but there's no need/attachment involved. Even though unwanted things may be going on in our midst, (children dying, etc.), there is still a sense of abiding Peace. Years ago, I used to go nights without sleeping due to thoughts of other people and animals suffering. My sense of Peace was disturbed by the thoughts I entertained about the suffering of others. I was observing the experience of others and layering on my own elaborate stories about them....and then, I was suffering for that. I started to release that resistance through writing songs about those things....and really after the fact, it was pretty clear that "I" had not written them at all....but rather they came through me...as though they were being channeled. The content of those songs was not about how horrific this world and it's suffering was, but rather the words offered a far more expansive perspective, absent the contracted perspective I'd previously been entertaining. I'd usually end up weeping with Joy & wonder by the end of the process, undoubtedly, seeing things from a much different, more expansive vantage point. These days, there is still compassion and an ability to empathize, but now it's without getting caught up in my own sense of grief over these things, which really only adds fuel to the fire anyway. I act where a clear opportunity to act presents itself, and in cases where I'm not in a position to 'help' I simply offer love. Interestingly enough though, in the past when I spent oodles of time focused upon 'the horrors of this world,' these types of things were constantly making their way into my awareness...presenting through stories others would tell me, the news I'd encounter when perusing a newspaper or turning on the TV, or even overhearing strangers talking. Now that the focus has shifted, it's very rare that such information ever presents....and if it does, it always seems to present with a clear avenue for extending action that can actually 'help' the situation, attached to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2013 14:31:27 GMT -5
Allowing and accepting are two qualities of an enabler. This is why I'm still fond of 'FURTHER.' It's the skepticism that keeps on giving. Yeah.....I use the words 'allowing/accepting' more to describe a way of being, than 'doings.' And I also understand the idea of 'further' or 'deepening' as I prefer to call it. & While there is no sense here of 'seeking' or 'trying/striving' for deepening, it does seem to be happening, nevertheless. Yup. That's it...I'd say though that the 'deepening' surrounding that seeing eventually moves towards actually loving/embracing 'what is.' Not in the way where we say, "Oh wow...kids dying, isn't that marvelous" or anything like that, but more just an overall love of life/experience itself. I see the difference between a need and a preference as; when a need is present, we will rail against 'what is' if it does not conform to our idea of how we'd like things to be. Needs result in emotional suffering. A preference on the other hand is how we'd 'like to see things,' but there's no need/attachment involved. Even though unwanted things may be going on in our midst, (children dying, etc.), there is still a sense of abiding Peace. Years ago, I used to go nights without sleeping due to thoughts of other people and animals suffering. My sense of Peace was disturbed by the thoughts I entertained about the suffering of others. I was observing the experience of others and layering on my own elaborate stories about them....and then, I was suffering for that. I started to release that resistance through writing songs about those things....and really after the fact, it was pretty clear that "I" had not written them at all....but rather they came through me...as though they were being channeled. The content of those songs was not about how horrific this world and it's suffering was, but rather the words offered a far more expansive perspective, absent the contracted perspective I'd previously been entertaining. I'd usually end up weeping with Joy & wonder by the end of the process, undoubtedly, seeing things from a much different, more expansive vantage point. These days, there is still compassion and an ability to empathize, but now it's without getting caught up in my own sense of grief over these things, which really only adds fuel to the fire anyway. I act where a clear opportunity to act presents itself, and in cases where I'm not in a position to 'help' I simply offer love. Interestingly enough though, in the past when I spent oodles of time focused upon 'the horrors of this world,' these types of things were constantly making their way into my awareness...presenting through stories others would tell me, the news I'd encounter when perusing a newspaper or turning on the TV, or even overhearing strangers talking. Now that the focus has shifted, it's very rare that such information ever presents....and if it does, it always seems to present with a clear avenue for extending action that can actually 'help' the situation, attached to it. Well this particular issue is a koan of sorts for me. It seems to me that someone in the zone, so to speak, full-circly, is the most likely one to stand up and scream STOP! when atrocities are being committed. That sort of action, a constant striking while the hammer is hot, is a more telling indicator for me than whether they seem at peace or not. Rage and fury might just be the best response in certain situations. They can be effective wrappings for certain messages. Whether that person is in tune with an internal peace or not is really something they can only know, as you've noted. Mahakala, a wrathful deity, is considered to be the fierce and powerful emanation of Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion.
|
|