Intention, self and Self

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6342
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by Sighclone » Fri Dec 19, 2014 8:57 pm

Snowy - What a great, articulate comment re intention -- thanks. And ash, yes, the flow is a temporary refuge, but the fMRIs are pretty similar to long-time Theravadan meditators, cf. Jud Brewer's work at Yale, (although I think he moved to Hopkins.)

I agree with the conditioning comments, snowheight; the thrust of my question, however, is what "level" or "density" of unique individual "self" does it take to form whatever level of intention. i.e. if I intend to lose ten pounds, as a New Year's resolution, on January 1, am I therefore not enlightened, because there is a "little me" in here deciding to lose the weight. And, four months later, if all that weight is gone, and I feel the tiniest bit good about it, does that further highlight the hopelessly un-enlightened ME? Or, when I decided to press the "O" character at the beginning of this sentence, and did it, as does every person who has ever typed a word, are the most awakened of us just kind of neuroplastic robots, expressing the Will of The Universe?

My take is this: After a "big experience" of shifting, or whatever form that transition takes, a clear and unequivocal and permanent new "nonlocal Self" is recognized as being infinitely more real and transcendent than whatever identity we held before that, commonly referred to as the ego. Before the shift, life was a series of intentions, some of them unconscious or subconscious, and basically reflexes, but some of them very deeply considered (e.g. Edward Snowden). But after the shift event, the source of all intention is exposed to the new crucible of Presence / Being, etc., which is never far from our attention. And when stress arises (resulting from "intention" or not), Awareness is now, at the very least, a constant and always-available filter. And then the issue of choice arises, and with it, perhaps, the question "who chooses?"

I do believe (from experience) that intention tends to flow more harmoniously with Big Nudges from The Universe as we evolve spiritually. And to that extent, the "inside separate self" is less involved in "choosing."

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

User avatar
ashley72
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by ashley72 » Fri Dec 19, 2014 10:08 pm

Andy,

Do you mind if we change tack and discuss learning in respect to "intent"?

To me "learning" is fundamental to being human. Learning for instance seems to occur both consciously and unconsciously. There is even evidence that a fetus starts showing signs of learning at 32 weeks gestation.

Most people will argue that machines are not conscious yet, well at least to the level of a human consciousness. But there is a field called machine learning where machines can learn to do things like drive a car by themselves. If this kind of learning is unconscious and is purely algorithmic in nature... what type of learning is happening without a doer or chooser?

Can others see where I'm going with this very important point?

Conversely, If learning some tasks doesn't require a "conscious" doer or chooser that consciously chooses... what type of learning tasks require a doer and chooser?

All this leads to another idea... is there such a category distinction as unconscious knowledge and conscious knowledge?

Another follow on... Is there such things as unconscious algorithms and conscious algorithms... and if there were such a thing... what properties would divide them?

Would for example a "conscious" algorithm need to contain, a referent object, whereby actions such as thoughts, feelings & behaviours are directed back to that referent object?

Can any object with learning processing or regulation, be it a insect, flower, tree, bird, dog, cat, human or learning machine have such a conscious algorithm?

I've introduced a lot of new threads here, but it is a complex subject!

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6342
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by Sighclone » Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:11 am

Ash -

It was kind of you to ask to redirect the thread, But, as far as I am concerned, this thread can morph wherever it goes naturally. In fact, conversations do that, which is really what this forum is all about, so, of course we/you can take whatever tack people like.

My thrust in this thread, and most of those I start is the question of me vs. Me. That was what ET was all about ... awakening. It is a big, real event, and quite shocking for most. Machines learning through recursive algorithms forming metaschemes, etc.....all very interesting, and I mean that, and this thread can go there. Totally fine with me. And anyone can respond to your post, absolutely fine.

But the real serious question for all of us, and certainly for ET: Have you Self-realized? Or at least gotten a very clear glimpse of Unity Consciousness?

In the question of intent, I was actually speaking to those who have had an experience of nonlocal Self. And trying to say that the residual scaffolding of "separate inside self" is still hanging around. As Tim Freke says in "How Long is Now?" the paradox of awakening is a both/and paradox, not an either/or paradox. In my experience and opinion, the atman remains real. So there can be a dim, fragile, humble, even hopeful sense of "little me" who still seems to choose yogurt instead of ice cream, or rice instead of noodles. Perhaps the intensity/urgency of the intention is much less powerful, though. I just think that it is false, unnecessary and basically "spiritually egoic" to eternally damn any sense of being a separate self. Nothing is lost in awakening except the primacy of the ego.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

snowheight
Posts: 1958
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by snowheight » Sun Dec 21, 2014 8:27 pm

Sighclone wrote:Ash -

It was kind of you to ask to redirect the thread, But, as far as I am concerned, this thread can morph wherever it goes naturally. In fact, conversations do that, which is really what this forum is all about, so, of course we/you can take whatever tack people like.

My thrust in this thread, and most of those I start is the question of me vs. Me. That was what ET was all about ... awakening. It is a big, real event, and quite shocking for most. Machines learning through recursive algorithms forming metaschemes, etc.....all very interesting, and I mean that, and this thread can go there. Totally fine with me. And anyone can respond to your post, absolutely fine.

But the real serious question for all of us, and certainly for ET: Have you Self-realized? Or at least gotten a very clear glimpse of Unity Consciousness?

In the question of intent, I was actually speaking to those who have had an experience of nonlocal Self. And trying to say that the residual scaffolding of "separate inside self" is still hanging around. As Tim Freke says in "How Long is Now?" the paradox of awakening is a both/and paradox, not an either/or paradox. In my experience and opinion, the atman remains real. So there can be a dim, fragile, humble, even hopeful sense of "little me" who still seems to choose yogurt instead of ice cream, or rice instead of noodles. Perhaps the intensity/urgency of the intention is much less powerful, though. I just think that it is false, unnecessary and basically "spiritually egoic" to eternally damn any sense of being a separate self. Nothing is lost in awakening except the primacy of the ego.

Andy
Yes that's Foster's "Advaita Trap". What has to be admitted in any sighting of ego is that the very sighting of it creates it.

Adya simplifies and gives a direct definition of ego in "Dancing": assigning ownership, taking ownership, refusing ownership.

In terms of awakening, my experience is that the conditioned pattern of self-reference reasserted itself but it was never the same again. Now, it's always subject to witnessing, but of course, I can never be conscious of what I'm not conscious of.

The process of "is that ego?" -- directed inward -- is something that's relevant to the conditioned patterns and really, can't ever have an end in that the conditioning, while finite, is billions of years in the making. This process is similar and related to self-inquiry but the process of questioning identity is one that has a definite end.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.

User avatar
ashley72
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by ashley72 » Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:01 am

Andy,

Yes I agree with you... That the individual cannot get rid of the "learned" little me... For the pure fact it's a necessity of communication & control, but I'm coming at this from a very different stand point.

I believe the big "Me" is also just another "Learned" concept.

If our concept/category building machinery, is a learning algorithmic process that creates categories by analogy. Is it then also equally feasible that the big Me is formed by the same learning algorithms (not dissimilar to machine based ones)?... Think of Julian Jaynes Origin of Consciousness. Connsciousness (Big Me) — as he carefully defines it — is a learned process based on metaphorical language.

Machine learning is not a theory anymore, it's a fact. Personally I think any theory about Consciousness that wants to be taken seriously, needs to incorporate machine learning by algorithmic action into its theory.

I think it's only a matter of time before computer scientists and AI experts start to discover algorithmic actions that metaphorically form the Big Me.

One thing I want to stress in this approach, is that it's not merely the algorithmic action that creates the Big Me. It requires the primary domain (physical world) as well as the target domain (abstract symbols of the Mind) for it to arise...this is why spiritual gurus always categorise the "Big Me" introspective experience with concepts like wholeness, oneness & Universality.

kafi
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue May 27, 2014 10:24 am

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by kafi » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:29 pm

Andy,

I have written something in another thread ( on Determinism) which relates to your question:
http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth ... 00#p119600

Do you worry whether you are enlightened if you have an intent left in your actions?
I think it is not whether there is intent or not left.
It is rather where the intent comes from.

Does it come from fear ? Then it is from the egoic sense of self.
Or does it come from attachment (i.e. ' I insist that I need this job/car/relationship for my happiness' ) ? Then it is also from ego.

But, of course, there can be intent in the awakened state. In one of the Jeshua channelings ( I believe it was , The Way of Knowing by Jayem), he says something like: The Holy Spirit has but one goal , and that is the atonement [i.e. making us remember that we are one and not separate].

That is the sort of push/intent that I feel these days. From the single guiding hand there is a definite direction of events emerging. A flow of events. And that direction is to make me see that separation is unreal and fear is based on an illusion.
The universe does not care whether I choose vanilla or chocolate ice cream.
But it does care very much whether I speak up and share vs whether I shut up because of fear (or laziness).
Currently, the intent of the universe ( for me ) seems to be to make me face my fears head on and go straight through everything I never wanted to do.

When you talk about Big Nudges by the universe, it sounds like you are experiencing something similar.

User avatar
KathleenBrugger
Posts: 604
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by KathleenBrugger » Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:07 pm

This is quite an interesting thread, Andy. There are a lot of recent responses that have resonated with me. My first response was, like kafi, to ask, "why would enlightenment mean the end of intention?" In my experience and understanding, enlightenment leads to pure intention, unclouded with egoic baggage. Sometimes it seems to me there is a prejudice that enlightenment or awakening means you become some kind of thought-less zombie that can only sit, with no intentions to drive action. As you said:
Sighclone wrote:I just think that it is false, unnecessary and basically "spiritually egoic" to eternally damn any sense of being a separate self. Nothing is lost in awakening except the primacy of the ego.
Imo, what we're looking to end are the self-referential thoughts, the thinking about "what does this intention mean about me." Psychologists talk about Self 1 and Self 2. Self 2 is the doer, the part of us that can swing a tennis racket and somehow hit the ball spinning towards us. Self 1 is the analyzer, wondering how we look in our new tennis dress, that makes us miss the shot. I don't see getting rid of Self 2, I am looking to quiet Self 1's narcissistic chatter. (see below for quote) I just watched a Sam Harris video yesterday and he said, "It's like I have the most boring person in the world in my head; I have the same conversation with my self over and over again. If we did this with others--had the same conversation over and over--they’d think we were insane." This is the thinking we want to stop.

I really liked what snowheight wrote:
snowheight wrote:When I’m filling out the 1040, cleaning the cat litter or dealing with some client who feels entitled to something they perceive a deficit of, there’s always an opportunity to notice my resistance to the situation, and to be honest, these opportunities to notice abound! When in that situation though, one surefire way to short-circuit the resistance is to open into the notion of owning the choice to be in the situation to begin with. Rather than casting a situation like this as requiring a force of will to complete something I didn’t want to do, the key to flow is to recognize that the situation in front of us is where we are, who we are, what we are in that moment.

It is true that some situations are the constricted result of grave and tragic events. Ultimately, in terms of the appearance of that boundary between what we take ourselves to be and what isn’t that, the only thing we have control over is our internal state. In the end, our only domain is our reaction to what presents.
Someone wrote on this forum recently that they couldn't imagine living in "flow" all the time. Snowheight gave the key above: accepting "the situation in front of us is where we are, who we are, what we are in that moment." My vision of enlightenment is not some withdrawn, ascetic, intentionless state, but rather a buzzing, ecstatic engagement with the Now, no matter what that Now looks like. When you are in that state of bliss, then all experience is equally ecstatic. Even getting nailed to a cross--the body will hurt, but if you are truly in an enlightened state you will be flowing with the energy of that moment.

Quote about Self 1 and 2, from a book called The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size, by Danish science writer Tor Norretranders:
In books on tennis, golf, and skiing, author W. Timothy Galwey has developed the idea of Self 1 and Self 2. The problem is that Self 1 wants badly to control and decide everything. But it is Self 2 that carries out the performance as a tennis player or music maker. It is Self 2 that knows how to perform a good forehand, while Self 1 is concerned with how you look, how the next shot should be carried out, the result of the last forehand, etc. Self 1 interrupts and confuses, while Self 2 is the reservoir of potential, of everything we can do.

The problem for the music maker, tennis player, or skier is the inner struggle between Self 1 and 2: if Self 2 is left to work in peace, the result may be great performances, but it is constantly disturbed by Self 1’s “what if’ way of thinking. The goal is to attain the “non-judging state of pure awareness” that Self 2 represents.
We are ALL Innocent by Reason of Insanity
http://kathleenbrugger.blogspot.com/

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by Enlightened2B » Mon Dec 22, 2014 6:25 pm

kafi wrote: But it does care very much whether I speak up and share vs whether I shut up because of fear (or laziness).
Currently, the intent of the universe ( for me ) seems to be to make me face my fears head on and go straight through everything I never wanted to do.
I can absolutely resonate with this. I'm experiencing the same thing. As someone who used to be very shy, it made me feel terrible when I didn't speak up because of fear and I think at the same time contributed to health issues of suppressed emotions.

I feel now I am being guided by my own feelings (and perhaps my spirit guides) to open up to the Universe and face my fears head on. That terrible feeling of suppressing my emotions is a form of guide for me that I need to be open and honest about my experience, hence I started posting in a public blog. I think my throat chakra is opening up with this as well. I feel the vulnerability with exposing myself to fear. It can be unpleasant, but honesty is the only way.

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6342
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by Sighclone » Mon Dec 22, 2014 10:48 pm

Thanks all.

Ash - I separate concepts from experience. At 5 years old I could conceptualized riding a bicycle. That was way different than, at 6 years old, actually riding one. At 12 years old I could conceptualize having an orgasm. That was way different than, a few years later, actually having one. Just because we can understand a concept, like democracy or freedom, actually having the experience of it is entirely different. I can conceptualize bodily death, but, having not had the experience in recent memory, shrink from talking about it with any authority. I can perhaps demonstrate the change in active neural pathways and organelle dominance between the fMRI of the 'default mode network' and the 'task mode network.' I can point to anecdotal phrasing which describes the "awakened state," and suggest entire books written by those who have visited it. And I can offer my version of a learned concept to describe it. All of the conceptual descriptions are fine. None of them compare to the experience.

KB, snowy and kafi: Much of this discussion is rhetorical. If we can identify intention, does that mean there is an "intender person?" And therefore, does that mean the person is "still asleep?" That was the original question in my little brain. The discussion of two selves (I and 2) is useful, for sure. But most of the world bumps along utterly unaware of Self 2. kafi, as ever, you remind us that there is an "unselfconscious courage" to feel/respond to the nudges of the universe.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

User avatar
ashley72
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by ashley72 » Tue Dec 23, 2014 12:29 am

Sighclone wrote:Thanks all.

Ash - I separate concepts from experience. At 5 years old I could conceptualized riding a bicycle. That was way different than, at 6 years old, actually riding one.
Have you considered this?

From birth you had all these developmental things happen to you, sensory experiences, learning to hold your neck up, crawling (let's call them motor skills).. that you were not "conscious" to conceptually....because your cognitive processes were not evolved enough to place them in conceptual framework. In other words, you were having the primary domain or ground (sensory input & motor skills) but it wasn't being transferred or mapped into the target domain sufficiently enough to recall it. Additionally, there wasn't this "little me" character having all these experiences. So at this age you were unable to separate concepts from experience, because the concept of "you" didn't exist yet... "Supervised learning" occurred for approx two years until the "little me" popped into the conceptual framework and hence until that moment you weren't aware of the experiences either!

It seems to me that experiences and our conceptual machinery are interwoven and you can't be conscious of one without the other.

Remember "experience" happens to an object. If you have not conceptualised that object yet, it's not possible for the experience to occur yet.

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by smiileyjen101 » Tue Dec 23, 2014 4:34 am

Nothing is lost in awakening except the primacy of the ego.
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

It was this that led me to read ET's work in the first place - when it all seems so simple, why do folks believe only the ego has the 'power'? - because they do, until they don't. And once they don't, even ego is okay, it's just not stuck in 'Drive' all the time.

I really, really, really like nothing is lost, except the primacy of the ego 'primacy' being the key difference between this statement and many others describing awakening and its relationship with ego.
Kafi said: Currently, the intent of the universe ( for me ) seems to be to make me face my fears head on and go straight through everything I never wanted to do.

E2B said:
I can absolutely resonate with this. I'm experiencing the same thing.
The universe does not give a personal rats how you play your game it's big enough and beautiful/ugly enough to handle whatever you come up with in aware attention or unaware intention.
(the intent of the universe seems to be ---)


The potentials were always there just waiting for you to notice and acknowledge them.
those created fears that you created in order to know them intimately as perceived real and perceived not real,

that created
the perception of courage required that is not required at all;

to do that which was perceived as outside of potential goodness in growth and in your delineation has been made real in your awareness and so can be experienced;
and,
is the very thing that will grow you by setting you free from your own 'limitations'.

because no thing is outside of anything
and you can only be free of the illusions by testing the 'matter' of the illusion - hence why you will go straight through them, the illusion is not real.

Like sailing through clouds that once looked like the horizon ended there. The horizon is eternal and moves as we do.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6342
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by Sighclone » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:08 am

Have you considered this?

From birth you had all these developmental things happen to you, sensory experiences, learning to hold your neck up, crawling (let's call them motor skills).. that you were not "conscious" to conceptually....because your cognitive processes were not evolved enough to place them in conceptual framework. In other words, you were having the primary domain or ground (sensory input & motor skills) but it wasn't being transferred or mapped into the target domain sufficiently enough to recall it. Additionally, there wasn't this "little me" character having all these experiences. So at this age you were unable to separate concepts from experience, because the concept of "you" didn't exist yet... "Supervised learning" occurred for approx two years until the "little me" popped into the conceptual framework and hence until that moment you weren't aware of the experiences either!

It seems to me that experiences and our conceptual machinery are interwoven and you can't be conscious of one without the other.

Remember "experience" happens to an object. If you have not conceptualised that object yet, it's not possible for the experience to occur yet.
I have no problem agreeing that the undeveloped brain was not really capable of forming abstract concepts, or at best was pretty weak. But let's say we are both adults. And neither one of us has eaten a kumquat. I bite into one and say: "wow, it's fruity in a tart kind of way with a combination taste of watermelon and lemon." At that point you have formed some kind of idea/concept of the "taste of a kumquat." But you have not had the experience. It doesn't really matter which "you" we are referring to, "little you, big you, divine witness you, drunken little you, etc." The organism has not tasted a kumquat. Then you eat one. And realize that maybe you would verbally describe the sensation differently, and the third listener would form a slightly different concept.

There is a big difference between an abstraction and an empirical event, interweaving notwithstanding. The mind takes quite a while to adjust to the event of awakening because it feels like it happens outside of the mind. The entire concept of "nonmental" was new for me. (I think it was Peter Fenner who first used it.) Awakening is a nonmental event. Later the mind adapts to the new environment, a transcendent stillness which exceeds its ability to label, hence all the mumbo-jumbo we keep reading about. Your interesting comment that "experience" happens to an object is correct until there is an experience which ends the definition of the original object (which was "me" and instantly becomes "Me.") Suzuki Roshi said: "Strictly speaking, there are no enlightened people, there is only enlightened activity." His point was that "little me" is replaced by a nonlocal self. After a period of disorientation, "I" can still eat a kumquat. And talk about it, and pay my taxes, etc. All the while knowing that my reference point as a separate inside self is bogus but handy from time to time.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by Enlightened2B » Tue Dec 23, 2014 5:45 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:
Kafi said: Currently, the intent of the universe ( for me ) seems to be to make me face my fears head on and go straight through everything I never wanted to do.

E2B said:
I can absolutely resonate with this. I'm experiencing the same thing.
The potentials were always there just waiting for you to notice and acknowledge them.
those created fears that you created in order to know them intimately as perceived real and perceived not real,

that created
the perception of courage required that is not required at all;

to do that which was perceived as outside of potential goodness in growth and in your delineation has been made real in your awareness and so can be experienced;
and,
is the very thing that will grow you by setting you free from your own 'limitations'.

because no thing is outside of anything
and you can only be free of the illusions by testing the 'matter' of the illusion - hence why you will go straight through them, the illusion is not real.

Like sailing through clouds that once looked like the horizon ended there. The horizon is eternal and moves as we do.
Jen, I somewhat grasp what you're saying, but then again, in the same breath, I don't think I understand what you're saying here.

So, can you clarify this one, one more time?

Thanks :)

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3743
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by smiileyjen101 » Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:21 am

I can only try E2B.
The potentials were always there just waiting for you to notice and acknowledge them.
those created fears that you created in order to know them intimately as perceived real and perceived not real,
With wider awareness, capacity and willingness we grow in experience, as Andy was describing above.

When ego is in the driver's seat and fear it's constant passenger, we navigate along avoiding this, crashing into that, judging this, and high-tailing it in the opposite direction from that.

The good-bad / scary-joyful perceiving was through the very limited lens of ego driving our awareness.

So the fears were not real, we just hold to them as if they are.
If fears are not real, then courage is not actually necessary to face them, illuminating (experiencing) the falseness / mis-takes is required.

If we put ego in the passenger seat, or even the back seat then we are looking through the windscreen more clearly, with a wider perspective, we can see in the rear view mirror but know that is behind us, we can see and respond to that in front of us more harmoniously. We are merely driving down the road meeting whatever is in front of us without prejudging it, we respond more authentically and naturally.We see more clearly, with a wider perspective than before and experience more directly, the fullness, not the skewed perspective of the experience.

We only thought we didn't want to experience it, when all the time we were creating an unreal imbalance that naturally has to correct itself into balance.

The lies we tell ourselves are sitting at a distance and an angle to us. We put them there, higher than the truth, and just far enough away from us that we don't notice we created them, we created their separate existence.

If we're sitting in the middle of a seesaw that is balanced (the truth - all of what is - in equilibrium) the extremities are in harmony and unmoving. One end of it is of no more importance than the other end.

If we jump on one end of a seesaw and tie it down with the weight of a perspective at odds with what's on the other end of it, what happens to the 'stuff' at the other end? It has to slide towards us. Who created that?

We did.

to do that which was perceived as outside of potential goodness in growth and in your delineation has been made real in your awareness and so can be experienced;
and,
is the very thing that will grow you by setting you free from your own 'limitations'.
It might seem like the stuff that you put at the other end of the seesaw is now moving towards you by some miracle of the universe, which I guess it is - it's gravity --- it's physics. If you just sit there and let it fall on top of you you will still be imbalanced. That's the funny bit about a materialistic person getting all narrowly spiritual it's still not balanced although the two are in one place and there's nothing at the other end.

Moving into the middle is balance.

Consider this in light of what ET says - if one is making an enemy, and obstacle, or a means to an end of a thing, person or situation one is creating suffering for self and others.

If one is viewing experience with ego in the driver's seat then absolutely we will be creating suffering for self and others. But instead of saying - oh, that's just my perspective of it through the lens of my ego - in reality there is the this of it, the that of it and a myriad other 'aspects' of it, as yet outside the lens of the ego - we for awhile believe what the ego is telling us, making enemy, obstacle, means to an end of it - putting it at the other end of the seesaw from us.

But these other aspects are still there, and we kind of see them out of the corner of our eye that is not blinkered by the ego. We notice that there is light (& vision & hearing & other senses) filtering in and agitating against the ego's version of reality. The 'aha' moments when something we previously thought we knew well enough, gains another aspect in our awareness. The more aspects we open ourselves to, the more balance there is as parts of the equilibrium of it unfold themselves into our awareness bringing us into balance rather than holding on or rejecting elements of 'stuff'.

The limitations we set on ourselves and our situations and others, and things --- we do that, we blinker ourselves when we are keeping ourselves apart from some aspects of it.

I most often think about it in terms of judging something as if we know the totality of it, when we don't. It's easy for me to skip back to my friend's murder & murderer and all the suffering and abhorrence and rejection ---- all self created suffering, through my blinkered viewing of it.

It's probably fairer of me to use an inanimate impersonal example of thinking we know enough about an experience to judge and to condemn elements of it as if separate to the whole.

If someone points out an element that was not in our 'version' of the story/events/thing we would have to further set ourself apart from it, strengthen our 'position' and isolate ourself from the totality of it - the good, the bad, the ugly and the downright beautiful and everything in between - and so we create ever stronger fears or revulsions or avoidances - all not real and all creating suffering as we try to reinforce and hang on to our perspective.

Andy's right, until one does experience the totality one has no idea what one is attributing to any thing.

When you drop the ego as the driver, you are moving in, towards and through 'stuff' more authentically.

- rain can be soaking and damaging and soothing and beautiful all at the same time.
A traffic jam instead of being a waste of our time can be an unexpected experience of time without demands that we have any control over fulfilling.
A 'sin' can be seen for the mis-take it really is.
Death can be seen as the end of life in gratitude & generosity, for all that ever was and all that still is.
Addictions and compulsions can be seen as offshoots of avoidance or resistance to our awareness, capacity and willingness;
awareness, capacity and willingness can be seen as interchangeable and as changeable in intensity as the winds, no one is a genius without also being an idiot, no one is an idiot without also being a genius, no thing is all good or all bad.

So the notion of the universe 'making us' into a thing is slightly off - we - by our awareness, capacity and willingness are just seeing 'new opportunities' that always were there, we just couldn't see them as they really are with our blinkers on.

It's kind of a reverse ego that says well this must be coming to me from something greater than me - must be the universe - we are only seeing that we have the whole universe to play in/with and so it's our biggest field of reference, some others might say God made me do it, or the devil, or whatever.

Equilibrium is a universal law in eternity, it cannot be denied, because it is eternally real.

Within the myopic parts of it, the 'elements' of it, if you have a fear of eg: spiders, you will feel noticeably out of balance regarding 'spiders'. Equilibrium comes with the love of spiders, gratitude and generosity and honesty about our relationship with them, only then have we found balance, and balance is our natural state, one which will always be 'self correcting'.

We have to work hard to stay out of our natural state. Once we stop holding on to the distortions we quite naturally will rebalance by experience.

Even those experiences we were sure we would not want, could not handle and would be the last thing that we would create for ourselves that will bring us more awareness, more honest use of our capacity and more willingness to sit in the middle of the see saw with what is at both ends.

We do because we cannot return to balance until / unless we do. We cannot correct our 'mis' takes by thought alone, we have to know it intimately, in all the aspects of it.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

Enlightened2B
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Intention, self and Self

Post by Enlightened2B » Tue Dec 23, 2014 9:04 am

Ok much clearer now. Thanks Jen for clarifying. :D

Couple of quick points as I resonate with much of what you said.
So the notion of the universe 'making us' into a thing is slightly off - we - by our awareness, capacity and willingness are just seeing 'new opportunities' that always were there, we just couldn't see them as they really are with our blinkers on.
This is excellent and I totally agree with this point on all levels, but this was not at all what I meant in the post you quoted me with kafi. 8)

I resonated with kafi's point on the fact that both of us recently are facing fear and as a result, learning to speak up about our experiences candidly. Aside from that, I can't speak for the rest of her post, but my own point in my post, was that recently, over the past several months as the result of a number of factors, I have come face to face with a lot of my fears (and yes, they are real, which I'll get to) and I've come to see that the more open I am about my experience by speaking up about how i truly feel and opening up to life (as someone who was previously shy), the more honest I am, the less limited I become, and the wider my perspective and the less manipulative I am towards others.

Yet, I've been using my own feelings as guides for myself to see where I am aligning with. To claim that there is something outside of me guiding me is completely missing the point of course. Everything, including potential spirit guides (which from reading enough NDE's seem likely), is merely a part of me as Being itself. No, I don't believe that the Universe has set anything up for me because the Universe is not separate from me nor is Source. I am Source expressing itself as this unique expression of Being that is waking up to its nature. If anything, I've been harping on this point in another thread about how manifestation and the LoA are so largely distorted and misinterpreted in the pop spirituality area. I'm seeing more and more how manifestation works on an unconscious level in my own life and on a conscious level and the associated Cause and Effect. Nothing random ever happening. Granted, I do think there is a possibility that we pre-manifest certain situations (prior to incarnation) for the mere experience and potential growth from those situations. But, guides can come in any form. It's whatever you open yourself up to seeing. There are sign posts everywhere. However, they are not brought exclusively to you, as something separate from tthe rest of totality. Like you said they are always there, it's just a matter of us seeing them.

I use my feelings and my physical health as a sign that I am out of alignment. My health and physical body have been my greatest awakening tool. The physical body's intended purpose is just that....a vehicle/temple to awaken through and learning to see the signs when the body is ill, that something in our experience is either being resisted or out of alignment. You say equilibrium, I say alignment. 8)

So, I loved your post Jen, but I slightly disagree with you on this one small part:

Saying that fears are not real is in my opinion, only applicable from the greater perspective of totality, but many of us still are stuck in our ego perspectives including myself more than I'd like to admit and yes, I'm still encountering my fears as i work through emotional healing. Yes, we might see through much of the illusory nature of what we once feared, and have a chuckle when we realize how those fears could ever have held us at gun point (I know I sure have), but that doesn't take away the fact that the fears are very, very much real for those who are still experiencing them.

Anyway, thanks for your response Jen. Much appreciated as always.

Post Reply