Thanks Jason

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Thanks Jason

Postby snowheight » Thu Jun 30, 2011 10:44 am

Didn't want to hog quark's thread and figured might as well make this public just in case there's some entertainment value in it for the rest.

Thanks for taking the time to provide that insight.

the key master wrote:Once you get some foundational algorithms, and know what to look for, "spot checking" happens by itself. The big ones are, the tendency to repress, tendency to expect, tendency to seek a sense of self in past/future, tendency to avoid emotional pain, tendency to suppress desire, things like this. These are the ways you "avoid being lucid", which for one reason or another, is precisely what you want to be doing. So its less about figuring out how to be lucid, and more about figuring out why a certain someone doesnt want to be.


This is good stuff. Here we can marvel at the irony of using conditioning to beat back conditioning ... to conceive and abstract the list of ills which mask what is inches from our nose and which is simplicity beyond conception. In worrying, avoiding, suppressing, expecting and telling stories, oblivion is chosen over reality -- all that apparent doing is actually anything but doing as the apparent doer is opting out of what the only thing that is real which is all around them and unnoticed due to the noise.

the key master wrote:
snowey said,
Ultimately, I have formed a belief that a state at which there is no need for practice is perhaps possible and optimal, I also accept my current state is not that state. This next simply must be expressed in the comical formulation of ndspeak: that belief is treated about as seriously from this perspective as any other belief held within it these days.


Ok. But there already is no need to practice being what you already are. You're practicing because you want to practice. So, if there is intention to understand the dynamics of your practice, how its totally ineffectual to becoming something that you actually already are, the possibility to transcend the mind state brought about through the practice can "happen".


For the bold -- this is a great insight Jason ... in this perhaps it is labeling the activity of apparently deliberately allowing all that is not what is to fall away so that it can be recognized later from within the delusion as "practice" which is faulty -- note that this later recognition in time is not a goal, just a side-effect. These sessions do form somewhat of an anchor, however, so to speak.

Want to practice? That just might be right. Can't say for sure. The bench is on the running track and that is a habit from years back that allows for the consumption of calories without getting irritated or ballooning up. No planning involved in sitting, it happens. There are cycles to the sitting. Sometimes, as related in that thread, a desire will arise or a judgment will be made about the sit. Sometimes the uncanny clarity of perception and apparent action after a sit will feed that. There actually is no chase any longer. Sing us that Doris Day song Jason.

What I didn't own up to in that original post, and where want definitely comes into play is the habit of trying to catch at least a quick meditation session before I sit down to do the deskwork of the day ... it is entirely self-serving, but I've noticed also somewhat Self-serving if I speak to people and generate ideas and plans and follow those plans from a state of clarity. This doesn't really qualify as spiritual practice it is just a cross-pollination between the secular and the non-secular.

snowheight wrote: I say sorry for all the stupid stuff I’ve done and ask for the courage, strength and wisdom to lead the rest of my sorry-ass existence, what is left of it, as best I can.

the key master wrote:Please, for yourself, stop apologizing. There's nothing to be sorry about. I'm not saying to never apologize again, or that saying sorry is against the rules, I'm just saying, you seem to believe that certain things which did happen should not have happened, that if you could go back in time and change things, that you would. That needs to be looked at. (its delusional)


The history which is the subject of the contrition is clearly seen to be delusion, and none of that is forefront, but the contrition itself is real and more and more palpable. The one delusion that eludes the perspective is permanent freedom from delusion, and even as there is no delusional anticipation of some illusory future, while the perspective persists the opportunity will remain to learn from the chimeric past ... to refrain from repeating old mistakes. The contrition serves as a reminder about this -- as there is noone to be reminded, conceive of this as a constant gift from one moment to the next from within the perspective. The categorization of that past is a recognition of the humility inherent in the perspective, and what deeper delusion occurs higher-up on any possible list of categories of delusion than lack of humility?

Don't make the mistake of reading into this that there is anyone to be humble, there isn't. A state of humility is the natural side-effect of recognizing the limitation of a unique perspective, and while that can be understood intellectually, it isn't really felt outside of a concurrent recognition of true nature, that is One, Indivisible, Beautiful Whole which is beyond description. Such is the paradox.

snowheight wrote:Watching the thinker has evolved into a more generalized watching and has flipped on itself. While I still watch for recursive thinking (a thought which was evoked by another thought, which can lead to yet another though evoked by that thought: “I’m hungry … I haven’t done the shopping … they started roadwork at the exit to the street with the best grocery … there are lots of guys on the construction crew who never seem to be doing anything as I drive by … my taxes are too high …), since this happens less and less I watch for other things: judgments not necessary to daily function, any hint of negative emotion, sneaky, sympathetic false-identification which plays to compassion, any “resting” of the mind on any sort of point which results in external fulfillment (this is the hardest so far!) … very long list here.

the key master wrote:Its monkey mind syndrome, in itself not indicative of a particular delusion, but the conditioned nature of mind and thinking. I think many delusional minds think they can transcend their own "conditionednessness". I also think, the "mind state of no mind" leads to the mental tendency to think that all thought has to be "lively, deep, and profound". This is probably a result from stupid ass guru's with surface level understandings of thought mechanics talking about their blinged out mind states. This is why I would focus less on a given mind state, and more on the dynamics at the root.


Yeah simple monkey-mind, or full-on deeply-nested recursive thinking, is not hard to miss ... once it has amped-up. It is the subtle hooks in the clockwork which, if caught early-on, can prevent the syndrome in the first place that are the apparent challenge -- apparent because of course at bottom there is no challenge to true nature, but to repeat, the delusion of being permanently free from delusion is eluded by the perspective.

These subtle hooks change, dodge, bob and weave and inevitably pop up like whack-a-moles. They evolve. Softly accepting this is a good strategy.

The state of no-mind is many things: a respite, a position from which the mind may be used as a tool, a recognition of true nature, a place from which a sense of Oneness with Being may be felt. It is from the state of no-mind that the recognition of the comical fallacy of ownership of thought can be seen, and any tendency to think that any thought has to be anything is seen to be equally comical.

snowheight wrote:By flipped on itself what I mean is that I also maintain a positive watch for a felt sense of oneness with being, and the constant lapse of this watch is a pointer in and of itself. I’ve just had to accept the vast potential for self-delusion on this point, and while this is perhaps the most useful watching, it is also the most “dangerous” in a way, in that one can never be certain of the pointers.

the key master wrote:Hmm. This sounds like a classical seeking dynamic. A "positive watch" sounds like the mind believing that it can recognize that which is beyond mental recognition.


I completely understand and am actually quite grateful for your sounding of this alarm -- this is what I meant by "dangerous". I assure you that I have no such belief ... it is just that as the cycles progress the amplitudes of the monkey-mind diminish, as no-mind (or bridled mind, if you will) becomes the more common default state and there is less and less to watch it becomes easier to instead watch for a slipping away of this state ... now of course while the assumption of this state (by whom? by what? ... the mind? ... in that case such assumption is clear delusion ... no, the intent is to express an assumption beyond mind) might always be delusion, therein lies the "danger". Best not to take it all so seriously. Best to instead to realize that there is noone to take anything seriously.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby the key master » Fri Jul 01, 2011 12:31 am

Your welcome snowey.

Want to practice? That just might be right. Can't say for sure. The bench is on the running track and that is a habit from years back that allows for the consumption of calories without getting irritated or ballooning up. No planning involved in sitting, it happens. There are cycles to the sitting. Sometimes, as related in that thread, a desire will arise or a judgment will be made about the sit. Sometimes the uncanny clarity of perception and apparent action after a sit will feed that. There actually is no chase any longer. Sing us that Doris Day song Jason.

What I didn't own up to in that original post, and where want definitely comes into play is the habit of trying to catch at least a quick meditation session before I sit down to do the deskwork of the day ... it is entirely self-serving, but I've noticed also somewhat Self-serving if I speak to people and generate ideas and plans and follow those plans from a state of clarity. This doesn't really qualify as spiritual practice it is just a cross-pollination between the secular and the non-secular.


So youre talking about what you consider part of your meditation routine. If youre doing it, then of course you want to be doing it. If meditating is helping you with work, or aiding with mental clarity as you go through your day, that's just fine. It might not be helping with transcending delusion, but that doesn't appear to be an issue here for you.

The history which is the subject of the contrition is clearly seen to be delusion, and none of that is forefront, but the contrition itself is real and more and more palpable. The one delusion that eludes the perspective is permanent freedom from delusion, and even as there is no delusional anticipation of some illusory future, while the perspective persists the opportunity will remain to learn from the chimeric past ... to refrain from repeating old mistakes.


I dont know how the subject of contrition can be clearly seen to be delusion if there is still mind identification. You're talking about contrition. Where is your gratitude? You should be thankful for the shit you've done, for the ugliness that you put on display for yourself. All you were doing was precisely what you wanted to do. Now youre still on about contrition. Its bullshit man. Something doesnt smell right. That ugliness is the realest shit about you.

Some people get this wacked out idea that waking up "from the dream" isn't personal. Its BULLSHIT. Waking up "in the dream" is for the person, blinged out mind states of mental absence not so the person can be happy, but so it can forget and cover up how miserable it is, and more importantly, why its so miserable. Transcendance, waking up "from the dream", is what im on about. Ending delusion, transcending mind identification, transcending the person. The person doesnt "do this", its "done to it". The person is transcended. Big league advice there.

to refrain from repeating old mistakes. The contrition serves as a reminder about this -- as there is noone to be reminded, conceive of this as a constant gift from one moment to the next from within the perspective.


What else do you plan on learning from it? Im all for live and learn. What is the human experience if not a learning experience. Im just saying, maybe your contrition is completely conditioned, and motivated by unconscious forces. Maybe its a form of delusional projection indicating that you have not fully understood the nature of unconscious behavior. Learn from it, but it aint no one's fault. Maybe im wrong, and maybe im not.

and what deeper delusion occurs higher-up on any possible list of categories of delusion than lack of humility?


Ok--you put this part in red, and Im wondering why. Being identified with your mind is the only delusion to transcend. All the other ones, are like little sprouts or something. So lack of humility a delusion? I think krishnamurti said that a man who speaks of his own humility knows nothing about humility. In all humility, that sounds fuckin delusional to me. Im sorry if my non-deluded thought processes arent measuring up to your or anyone else's expectations of what a non delusional mind is supposed to think like. Shit aint my problem. Your expectations, your problem. My expectations, my problem. I appreciate you looking out, if thats what you were doing, but Im not seeing any problems.

Don't make the mistake of reading into this that there is anyone to be humble, there isn't.


This sounds delusional to me. There is still someone here, my name is jason, how do you do? I swear some of the shit people write on the internet. You ever talk to someone in person about this, and tell the person they arent a person. They look at you like you got three fuckin heads, and rightfully so.

A state of humility is the natural side-effect of recognizing the limitation of a unique perspective, and while that can be understood intellectually, it isn't really felt outside of a concurrent recognition of true nature, that is One, Indivisible, Beautiful Whole which is beyond description. Such is the paradox.


Elaborate on the nature of this paradox. I dont see it. But then again, i dont know anything about states of humility. I guess thats what happens when you transcend mind identification though. A communication barrier arises. I call it an apple because its red, and you call it an orange because youre delusional. Im not saying between me and you, me and anyone. What a delusional mind "believes a belief is" is just laughable to me. Its probably the most delusional thing about the delusional mind, for all you lurkers out there.

I do talk about transcendance like its something you dont want, which happens to be true. But at the same time, once consciousness become lucid, there is ZERO interest in going back to "the way things were". Thats kind of a paradox, which maybe ill explain in more detail later.

ah simple monkey-mind, or full-on deeply-nested recursive thinking, is not hard to miss ... once it has amped-up. It is the subtle hooks in the clockwork which, if caught early-on, can prevent the syndrome in the first place that are the apparent challenge -- apparent because of course at bottom there is no challenge to true nature, but to repeat, the delusion of being permanently free from delusion is eluded by the perspective.


Snowey, I can appreciate this. I must say, you got balls addressing me the way you have. Youre a fearless fellow, and it will get you far in this game. Its good you are playing the end the delusion game, as opposed to lets see how high I can stack myself in shit before i decide i want to climb out. There is a pull of thought driven by the tendency to seek. I dont see it as an "addiction to thought" that "needs to be broken", but instead a conditioned "machine"( i dont like using that word but it applies here) which needs to be noticed more. You have to treat the mind just like you would an "other" in a relationship. A little attention, love, and understanding goes a mighty long way, as opposed to "hating the mind out of existence", aka, repression.

These subtle hooks change, dodge, bob and weave and inevitably pop up like whack-a-moles. They evolve. Softly accepting this is a good strategy.


I dig it.

The state of no-mind is many things: a respite, a position from which the mind may be used as a tool, a recognition of true nature, a place from which a sense of Oneness with Being may be felt.


A respite. Thats good to notice. Respite from what, if not the mind itself?

Using mind as a tool from no mind? Ehm, if you mean you "spontaneously" give thinking a rest before the next "spontaneous" thought, well thats well and good. But you sure as shit arent doing anything, or using a state of your own absence.

A recognition of true nature? If the mind is recognizing anything, its what youre true nature isnt. If you mean, you already are what you are, I cant argue that. Not sure about the whole "recognition process", but I am not saying I am against self inquiry in order to see that you are not that which is seen.

It is from the state of no-mind that the recognition of the comical fallacy of ownership of thought can be seen, and any tendency to think that any thought has to be anything is seen to be equally comical.


This was in red, again. Yea what you said is on point. None of this shit is actually personal. The issue is the belief that it is, which is something i can help no one in particular with.

now of course while the assumption of this state (by whom? by what? ... the mind? ... in that case such assumption is clear delusion ... no, the intent is to express an assumption beyond mind) might always be delusion,


I do my best to not be a language nit picking biatch. Its really annoying, trust me, i know what im talking about LOL. Ehm, im not going to say all thought is delusional, or that talking about the witness with the mind is delusional, or what have you. So, yea, best to not take it all so seriously, unless there is still a certain someone taking it seriously. Then, you might want to take it deadly seriously. People dont live forever...
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby snowheight » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:06 am

Awareness is noticed while the mind is silent, and in this case there is no identification with what is temporarily absent.

The term "no-mind" outside of Tolle's contextual definition isn't either flattering or useful. His use of the word "mind" is radically and subtly different from the traditional. It is Tolle's definition of the state which I'm referring to. (*** intellectual digression on this below).

snowheight wrote:Want to practice? That just might be right. Can't say for sure. The bench is on the running track and that is a habit from years back that allows for the consumption of calories without getting irritated or ballooning up. No planning involved in sitting, it happens. There are cycles to the sitting. Sometimes, as related in that thread, a desire will arise or a judgment will be made about the sit. Sometimes the uncanny clarity of perception and apparent action after a sit will feed that. There actually is no chase any longer. Sing us that Doris Day song Jason.

What I didn't own up to in that original post, and where want definitely comes into play is the habit of trying to catch at least a quick meditation session before I sit down to do the deskwork of the day ... it is entirely self-serving, but I've noticed also somewhat Self-serving if I speak to people and generate ideas and plans and follow those plans from a state of clarity. This doesn't really qualify as spiritual practice it is just a cross-pollination between the secular and the non-secular.


the key master wrote:So youre talking about what you consider part of your meditation routine. If youre doing it, then of course you want to be doing it. If meditating is helping you with work, or aiding with mental clarity as you go through your day, that's just fine. It might not be helping with transcending delusion, but that doesn't appear to be an issue here for you.


This is a great insight on two levels, the first of which was easy to see, the second of which took a bit of contemplation. In the first instance, the point of quieting the mind is purely practical. Note that "practice" is another form of the word "practical".

As far as the second is concerned, an illuminating context is to be had by first digressing into your request for elaboration:

snowheight wrote:A state of humility is the natural side-effect of recognizing the limitation of a unique perspective, and while that can be understood intellectually, it isn't really felt outside of a concurrent recognition of true nature, that is One, Indivisible, Beautiful Whole which is beyond description. Such is the paradox.


the key master wrote:Elaborate on the nature of this paradox. I dont see it.


Yeah you do, the_key_master's writings are suffused with it. You seem to live it quite well. That particular expression of it seems to evoke some resistance ... to see it intellectually, first consider:

the key master wrote:Being identified with your mind is the only delusion to transcend. All the other ones, are like little sprouts or something.


... as it is with delusion, so it is with paradox. Note that this is not reasoning by analogy. You are familiar with the concept of a basis vector: it is not that each expression of the paradox is like or similar to every other, it is that each expression is a reformulation, a re-expression of the exact same conceptual manifestation.

While the assumption of a particular basis vector is arbitrary, some are less arbitrary than others, and here is one expression of it:

Our sense of separation from an unnameable One Whole Being which is beyond comprehension is illusory, and yet, there is no experience of whatever-that-is outside of a unique perspective, and without that experience, what is this Being?

Now, hold the dismissive chuckle of contempt for this as some sort of soft-hearted belief long enough to confront the facts that belief in a paradox is an oxymoron and the implied dilemma of the statement is anything but soft. If, worse off, there is a temptation to deflect the statement intellectually, good luck.

Now, before addressing the whole humility thing, let's circle back to your rather striking insight about desire.

As it goes with paradox and delusion, so it goes with desire. There really is only one core desire, and that is for the pain of the illusion of separation to subside. If we chase the opposite sex from a perspective of loneliness the desire manifests as lust or a longing for love. If we feel poor the desire manifests as greed and fear of material loss and union with the paper cut-out image of certain founding fathers is craved. Something nags at the separated perspective ... isn't there something else other than what we can see, touch taste or feel? Something that can be learned, or felt?

Tolle gives guys like me a 3 month free pass. 40 pages into TPON there is no more identification, and from within this childlike state one is certain that it will never subside and almost baffled by the concept that it could.

I can pinpoint a particular experience that marked the end of that period but that is not relevant to the genesis of the chase. That practice did emerge innocently, simply from the consequence of sitting on the bench after a run, and literally unconscious of either what I was doing or the desire to recapture the state from the free pass -- recognizing that I was meditating came later when I made that post, and I'm not certain when I started deluding myself about the lack of the desire, because last year I certainly knew better.

Nonetheless, standing up from the bench, in the moments after no-mind, there is no identification. But there is business to be done and a house to renovate and a woman to return love to ... when and how do all of these blessings flip suddenly into the curse of the one core delusion?

At this point the reader may feel contempt or sympathy. Doesn't matter. It's a Rorschach test, but that doesn't matter. No sympathy is sought and contempt is an opportunity for the perspective in which it arises. The fact is, that this is. "Practice" is the root of the word "Practical".

So yeah, no-identification with mind on the bench ... sometimes no-identification off the bench ... identification seems to re-form, and the bench seems to help. Common as quarters, and if a desire to end desire seems contradictory, ask yourself what in your life is free from such contradiction? An honest contemplative answer based in an intellectual understanding of the paradox is "nothing" ... but as per the paradox one need not understand it to live within it, from where the paradox dissolves.

------

(*** intellectual digression on Tolle's contextual definition of the word "mind")

Reading TPON from a materialist, secular perspective a skeptical idea occurs -- while it is understood what Tolle meant by the notion that his writing was a pointing toward what is beyond understanding surely the words were being processed and understood by the brain. In short, neuroscience can currently quantify "thought" in a very crude fashion by measuring electro-chemical activity in the brain in response to external stimuli.

So in the spirit of the suspension of dis-belief (which is required, big time, while reading any spiritual writing), it is necessary to understand Tolle's use of the word "mind" to refer to a particular subset of brain activity. Not all of that activity goes away in watching the mousehole.

======

Now, onto humility!

snowheight wrote: and what deeper delusion occurs higher-up on any possible list of categories of delusion than lack of humility?


the key master wrote:Ok--you put this part in red, and Im wondering why. Being identified with your mind is the only delusion to transcend. All the other ones, are like little sprouts or something. So lack of humility a delusion? I think krishnamurti said that a man who speaks of his own humility knows nothing about humility. In all humility, that sounds fuckin delusional to me. Im sorry if my non-deluded thought processes arent measuring up to your or anyone else's expectations of what a non delusional mind is supposed to think like. Shit aint my problem. Your expectations, your problem. My expectations, my problem. I appreciate you looking out, if thats what you were doing, but Im not seeing any problems.


Any ownership of the humility was disclaimed -- scoff if you like, but prayer, which is not a practice that was engaged in and something that was held deeply in contempt, now only arises from a very deep and almost overwhelming sense of gratitude at the start of a state of no-mind. A brief pause from the practice ensues.

Humility flips to hubris, no doubt ... but this is true of any concept. Perhaps you will permit a radical non-dual contextual definition of the word -- it is a recognition of the limitation of the unique perspective which forms the latter-half of the paradox, and the contrition which is the consequence is, in turn, simple recognition of the error of a mind-identified state ... it is only original sin which is apologized for, none of the story-sprouts come into play.

snowheight wrote:Don't make the mistake of reading into this that there is anyone to be humble, there isn't.


the_key_master wrote:This sounds delusional to me. There is still someone here, my name is jason, how do you do? I swear some of the shit people write on the internet. You ever talk to someone in person about this, and tell the person they arent a person. They look at you like you got three fuckin heads, and rightfully so.


The double-slit experiment, which is the materialist expression of the paradox, almost literally did drive some of the men who discovered it crazy. Neils Bohr, one of the primary movers of this is quoted as saying "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth" and "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." and "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress".

Is it crazy that most people are literally ignorant of the implications of this discovery?

Does it make you uncomfortable to have three heads? Man-up Jason. There's a person but there is no person -- that's the shorthand ... just as one can never be absolutely sure that one is not in the grip of delusion I can't say for sure that my contrition during prayer is completely free from mind identification each and every time for every instant ... but I can report some certain clarity and real inner-peace surrounding the whole affair.

Conversely the bottom-line is that humility might not be right for every perspective, at least at certain times, so in that, the point in red from the last post should be balanced with -- but a lack of humility does not necessarily imply delusion. Look, this is just the way that it is with this stuff ... if you were to state everything in such a way that it was as true as it could get it would always be stated as a contradiction. Too bad, so sad.

the_key_master wrote:Youre a fearless fellow


Ever since Sue and I read Brodie's book we've developed the funny little habit of replying to any such assertions with "hmmm .... great meme-sticker you wrote ... too bad the glue seemed to be weak ... you might want to look for it ... it has slipped off of my forehead".

the_key_master wrote:I must say, you got balls addressing me the way you have.


Are you referring to the avoidance of using "I" in the writing or the assertion that permanent banishment of the delusion is a delusion? If the reference was to either one of these there are interesting and amusing digressions involved ... if something else, please do illuminate.

snowheight wrote:The state of no-mind is many things: a respite, a position from which the mind may be used as a tool, a recognition of true nature, a place from which a sense of Oneness with Being may be felt.


the_key_master wrote:A respite. Thats good to notice. Respite from what, if not the mind itself?

Using mind as a tool from no mind? Ehm, if you mean you "spontaneously" give thinking a rest before the next "spontaneous" thought, well thats well and good. But you sure as shit arent doing anything, or using a state of your own absence.


The respite is nice, but as Sighclone Andy's Zenmaster explains, this can be a pitfall known as the "cave of demons". While resting in awareness is restorative, the tendency to avoid a disturbance of the state can lead to a wasted life.

Can some stay in the state no matter what confronts them? Just because there is a refusal to believe in a permanent state of dis-identification from this perspective doesn't imply that this might not be so for some other perspective ... who am I to say of their state? ... who are they? Perhaps I'll work on moving from no-belief to no opinion on this one.

As far as Tolle's pointer about using the mind, and your comment on it above, this devolves, as many conversations and activities do, to a simple exercise in self-inquiry. That's ok, I've posted this question before: if a belief that separation is an illusion is maintained exactly what facet of existence is not a form of self-inquiry?

Who is using the tool during these times? Conceptually this is a recursive dead-end, and you probably know better than this from your own direct experience. I know I do.

Thanks again, Jason.

PS: here is a practical demonstration of humility and its consequences -- keeping this stuff out of quarks thread brings into greater relief Alex's post (can you imagine going down this road as a woman with a small child), as the reader doesn't have to sift through all of our noise. <-- Note how humility shifts to hubris :lol:
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby the key master » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:19 am

Hi Snow. Ok I guess I better dive in.

Awareness is noticed while the mind is silent


Can that which notices notice itself? What is there to notice, other than the noticing? An active mind can be noticed. Active, which I believe comes from the greek word "action". Active mind is where the action is, and where lots of that learning stuff happens. :mrgreen:

and in this case there is no identification with what is temporarily absent.


I would say that the "mind state of mind identification" not only exists during the "mind state of no mind", its actually perpetuated by it. When there isn't mind identification, you won't even care about what mind identification is. So what I am saying is, that the way to transcend mind identifcation has more to do with noticing and understanding delusion, "the sprouts" if you will, than with the fact that mind identification is witnessed.

In the first instance, the point of quieting the mind is purely practical. Note that "practice" is another form of the word "practical".


Im with you.

... as it is with delusion, so it is with paradox. Note that this is not reasoning by analogy. You are familiar with the concept of a basis vector: it is not that each expression of the paradox is like or similar to every other, it is that each expression is a reformulation, a re-expression of the exact same conceptual manifestation.

While the assumption of a particular basis vector is arbitrary, some are less arbitrary than others, and here is one expression of it:


No Im not familiar with a basis vector. I know what a vector is, from physics and dynamics and stuff, so maybe I am. I glanced at the cross link, but just came right back here. But, as you offer an expression of it, right here, I can talk about that---->

Our sense of separation from an unnameable One Whole Being which is beyond comprehension is illusory, and yet, there is no experience of whatever-that-is outside of a unique perspective, and without that experience, what is this Being?


Ok. "there is no experience of whatever-that-is outside of a unique perspective". There is no experience of whatever-that-is "inside a unique perspective". The unique perspective is the delusional foundation which mind identification sprouts from.

There is an experience of "whatever that is" outside of a unique perspective, and that alone is the only experience of "whatever-that-happens-to-be". You are never not noticing, never not creating that which you are perceiving. You are never not experiencing yourself. The "state of witnessing", or whatever, is not really a state at all, so it can be looked at as an experienceless experience, because of your very own timeless ineffable quality. Put another way, what you are is absent of quality, and to speak of "experiencing" something "without quality", is not paradoxical, but simply impossible. There is "nothing" to experience.

As it goes with paradox and delusion, so it goes with desire. There really is only one core desire, and that is for the pain of the illusion of separation to subside. If we chase the opposite sex from a perspective of loneliness the desire manifests as lust or a longing for love. If we feel poor the desire manifests as greed and fear of material loss and union with the paper cut-out image of certain founding fathers is craved. Something nags at the separated perspective ... isn't there something else other than what we can see, touch taste or feel? Something that can be learned, or felt?


You think thoughts which you want to think, is a good way to look at it. Granted thought is spontaneous, but for a mind to claim it doesnt want to think what it clearly is thinking, is ehm, delusional. This is the foundation for split mind thinking. In some ways, truth is desire, yet, almost paradoxically, you cannot desire truth. Ok, maybe you can, provided of course you are a delusional certain someone.

The desire for "the pain of the illusion of separation to subside" is a form of seeking, being driven by fear. The seeker seeks the end of pain, the end of delusion, the end of whatever, which is, obviously, delusional. If you are feeling pain from the illusion of separation, its because you want to feel pain from the illusion of separation. The issue is that you are "resisting your own desire for pain", which is what suffering is. Knowing that it stems from an illusion is a "belief which kinda gets in the way". Mind utilizes it "in furtherance of the illusion itself". Like, ehm, there is no separate self, so there is no need for pain. Freedom is through the pain always, never ever from it.

You talked a bit about desire. You also use the word "chase". No experience is worth chasing. Desire drives the dream. Its what makes life worth living. "Without desire, you are dead". Maharshi said that. Probably the best thing he ever said. Desire does not cause suffering. Seeking on the other hand, does. The fear of emotional pain leads to the tendency to seek and strive for control. Those are foundational algorithms. Up top on the surface, all sorts of shit can sprout off stemming from emotional reactions and uncontrollable surface level thought patterns. Quieting the mind a bit can help tame this sort of egoic freight train thinking, so that greater clarity can be gained through understanding the underlying dynamics.

Something nags at the separated perspective ... isn't there something else other than what we can see, touch taste or feel? Something that can be learned, or felt?


Im not sure if these were rhetorical. I think they were.

But there is business to be done and a house to renovate and a woman to return love to


None of this is true. Thats the truth of the matter.

if a desire to end desire seems contradictory, ask yourself what in your life is free from such contradiction?


Well it is contradictory, which would explain a lot of the issues we see around here. The desire to end desire is an easy way to "avoid fear". If you dont desire anything, whats there to fear? Thats what I see out of most seekers, the tendency to avoid fear, to avoid themselves, and avoid life "in the process". Lucid dreaming is about ending "seeking", not desire, by any means necessary.

scoff if you like, but prayer,


I wouldnt scoff. I always tell people to talk to the universe, to ask for help on the spiritual quest. If they are sincere, I know they will get it. Teaching people to "listen to the universe", now thats tricky. Good talkers are a dime a dozen. A true listener, not so easy to find.

The double-slit experiment, which is the materialist expression of the paradox, almost literally did drive some of the men who discovered it crazy. Neils Bohr, one of the primary movers of this is quoted as saying "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth" and "If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." and "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress".

Is it crazy that most people are literally ignorant of the implications of this discovery?


I want to discuss this in more detail with you. This post is getting long. I might start a new thread examining the "materialist expression of the paradox". Sounds like fun. Or maybe in my next response. If you could tell me more about the nature of the paradox, the bare bones of the double slit experiment, and anything else you think would make the discussion more fruitful, please do. I didnt scope the link, but will do in future.

Does it make you uncomfortable to have three heads? Man-up Jason.


Last i checked i dont even have one

just as one can never be absolutely sure that one is not in the grip of delusion


I used to say the same thing, that all a mind can think is, that as far as it thinks at any given time, it isnt delusional.

contrition during prayer is completely free from mind identification each and every time for every instant ...


Ok, what i was suggesting was the possibility that you(the mind so not you) are still conflicted about a certain something, and that your contrition could be an indication of such a conflict. It could also be the place where you "project all your other unresolved conflicts", or repressed emotional energy which is being brought in through the tendency to self seek and tendency to hide from pain. In terms of whatever you are sorry for, who's to say it was bad or wrong? Its ok to not be sorry, even when you hurt someone's feelings. Their hurt feelings, their expectation, their issue. Your hurt feelings because of those hurt feelings, your expectation of your own behavior(delusion), your issue. Moreover, if you were doing what you wanted to do, and had no control over what you were doing in the first place, who is sorry, and for what exactly?

Im not dismissing what I myself would consider "right and wrong behavior". From my own experience, based on my own knowledge of how I and others think and emote, based on empathy, compassion, blah blah blah, I do appear to have certain "values", or behavior patterns worth cultivating. Not rules, just patterns which developed over time. I didnt actually develop them, but rather watched them develop. Its personally related and stems from my own experience. I dont teach values, because I dont care what anyone else's values are, unless for some reason, I do.

Conversely the bottom-line is that humility might not be right for every perspective, at least at certain times, so in that, the point in red from the last post should be balanced with -- but a lack of humility does not necessarily imply delusion.


I guess my point was that in terms of humility, or however a certain mind wants to desribe a certain behavior, time is being brought into the equation. Starting at point A and ending at point B, that guy was a prick. What im saying is, that if you are a certain someone in a certain mind state, then you are one delusional ass certain someone, and thats all i have to say about that.

Are you referring to the avoidance of using "I" in the writing or the assertion that permanent banishment of the delusion is a delusion? If the reference was to either one of these there are interesting and amusing digressions involved ... if something else, please do illuminate.


You wrote in quarks thread a prayer to whatever is to end delusion or some such thing. I appreciate that sort of thing. Made a prayer like that once myself. Came true too :mrgreen:

Can some stay in the state no matter what confronts them?


What, the fuck, are you talking about?????(sorry mods ill stop cursing :lol: see contrition!!) What state? Transcendance is from mind states. You dont end up in some transcended state. You end up a transcended person. Nada mas.

Who is using the tool during these times?


Are you asking me if "someone uses the mind"? :shock: Maybe nobody does. The person is the mind, and nobody's using anything.

Alex's post (can you imagine going down this road as a woman with a small child),


I dont feel bad for chicks at all. Men tend to be way more repressed than women. I dont feel bad for them either. As far as alex goes, I think she's an awesome chick, and that her son is blessed to have such a warm and caring mother.

Talk to you soon snowey
-j

PS---lets shorten up the responses. i think theres a lot we could explore in more depth if we go one issue at a time, ya know? or not, just my preference.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby snowheight » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:40 pm

the key master wrote:i think theres a lot we could explore in more depth if we go one issue at a time


Yeah this is a rich ground and the discussion is taking a number of turns away from your initial gracious insights into my current practice.

I've shunted our discussion cum debate about the paradox here.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby snowheight » Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:43 pm

snowheight wrote: Awareness is noticed while the mind is silent

the key master wrote: Can that which notices notice itself? What is there to notice, other than the noticing?


That question, in the context it was asked, is simply a recursive play on words, nothing but food for the mind. A very well tread path here recently, and in the final analysis (here again, specifically in the light of what was written about self-inquiry in the last post) just another restatement of the paradox.

Maybe you wrote that before you read the context which followed the initial observation: "mind is silent" --> Tolle's definition of no-mind, which I provide in that post -- it's stated in Tolle's own words in the branching paradox thread.

snowheight wrote: if a desire to end desire seems contradictory, ask yourself what in your life is free from such contradiction?

the key master wrote: Well it is contradictory, which would explain a lot of the issues we see around here. The desire to end desire is an easy way to "avoid fear". If you dont desire anything, whats there to fear? Thats what I see out of most seekers, the tendency to avoid fear, to avoid themselves, and avoid life "in the process". Lucid dreaming is about ending "seeking", not desire, by any means necessary.


Yes it is contradictory, such is the paradox ... but to label the practice as described as an attempt to land on some, comfy, plush and isolated psychological easy chair belies that you haven't been reading what has been written very carefully. To put it as plainly as possible, at this point, I don't meditate to feel better ... you can counter with the notion of self-delusion if you must but that would simply be in bad faith at this point, and here we arrive at the essence of the limits of communication.

What seems to be happening is an attenuation of the peaks of the cycles of mis-identification with the mind. <puke> A process of enlightenment </puke> (thanks Dora!) defined by this circle of being and illusion.

snowheight wrote: But there is business to be done and a house to renovate and a woman to return love to
the key master wrote: None of this is true. Thats the truth of the matter.


From within the paradox, as it dissolves, this ruthless half-truth is lived and the worthless intellectual understanding of it fades away, discarded like a shuttle side booster rocket. What was offered by way of the context around that was as honest and transparent a report of what currently is, what is currently experienced -- and to re-iterate no sympathy for that is sought and contempt is an opportunity.

the key master wrote: You dont end up in some transcended state. You end up a transcended person.


the_key_master wrote: Can that which notices notice itself?


What is there to transcend and who does the transcending? Same message, different cookie-cutout.

snowheight wrote: Can some stay in the state no matter what confronts them?

the key master wrote: What, the fuck, are you talking about?????(sorry mods ill stop cursing :lol: see contrition!!) What state? Transcendance is from mind states. You dont end up in some transcended state. You end up a transcended person. Nada mas.


the key master wrote: I must say, you got balls addressing me the way you have.

snowheight wrote: Are you referring to the avoidance of using "I" in the writing or the assertion that permanent banishment of the delusion is a delusion? If the reference was to either one of these there are interesting and amusing digressions involved ... if something else, please do illuminate.


You wrote in quarks thread a prayer to whatever is to end delusion or some such thing. I appreciate that sort of thing. Made a prayer like that once myself. Came true too :mrgreen:


:lol: It would seem that you are referring to the latter, the conceptual assertion that permanent freedom from the delusion is a delusion -- but keep in mind, that the perspective which comes to this conclusion accepts the possibility that this in itself might be delusion. Put more plainly, just because I currently question whether a permanent state of being free from dis-identification is possible for myself does not mean that I do so for you. I'm not questioning your self-assessment (which seems to have elicited quite a bit of external validation) that you are a transcended person. Really. I'm not.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby the key master » Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:49 am

Hi Snowheight. Im going to start from the end of your post, and work backwards. Its best that way sometimes.

I'm not questioning your self-assessment (which seems to have elicited quite a bit of external validation) that you are a transcended person. Really. I'm not.


Im actually not the transcended person, which is what makes it a transcended person.

Put more plainly, just because I currently question whether a permanent state of being free from dis-identification is possible for myself does not mean that I do so for you.


I dont know what you mean when you say free from dis identification.

the conceptual assertion that permanent freedom from the delusion is a delusion -- but keep in mind, that the perspective which comes to this conclusion accepts the possibility that this in itself might be delusion.


Ok, Im keeping this in mind. This sounds like you questioning my self assessment. Which would make you, a liar, hehe.

What is there to transcend and who does the transcending? Same message, different cookie-cutout.


This is a good question. Mind states and nobody in particular.

What was offered by way of the context around that was as honest and transparent a report of what currently is, what is currently experienced


Is it possible that what is currently experienced actually is what is not? I like your honesty, snowey, maybe I wasnt listening so well. You said, "Business to be done, a house to renovate, and a woman to return love to". Take a look at these 3 things, and inquire into whether the mind is unconsciously projecting unresolved emotional issues into these "future related areas", where a certain someone could be hiding out so to speak. You know, spot checking, "noticing", that sorta thing. By all means, continue to use your day planner.

To put it as plainly as possible, at this point, I don't meditate to feel better ... you can counter with the notion of self-delusion if you must but that would simply be in bad faith at this point, and here we arrive at the essence of the limits of communication.


Ok, I believe you. Ask yourself why you are still meditating. If its not to feel better, then for what purpose. To be what you already are? Do you think you want to be transcended or enlightened? Most people on the quest do. Maybe there is an unconscious avoidance of emotional pain, or emotionally related issues stemming from the personal life. Spot check, notice, inquire. These are the tickets to transcendance. You dont need to understand a paradox to transcend a person. You are transcending it right now.

Yes it is contradictory, such is the paradox ... but to label the practice as described as an attempt to land on some, comfy, plush and isolated psychological easy chair belies that you haven't been reading what has been written very carefully.


Im just saying the desire to end desire is contradictory and illogical. Desire still operates in the transcended person. Otherwise he would never wipe his butt.

Maybe you wrote that before you read the context which followed the initial observation: "mind is silent" --> Tolle's definition of no-mind, which I provide in that post -- it's stated in Tolle's own words in the branching paradox thread.


Im going to leave the paradox discussion for tomorrow, when i respond to your other thread. Im not reading your cross links anymore.

Happy 4th, everyone.
Peace,
jason
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby snowheight » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:54 pm

Thanks again Jason, some keen insights throughout.

the key master wrote:Im just saying the desire to end desire is contradictory and illogical


Paradox is contradiction and a violation of logic. It's as far as the mind can go -- notice that your technique of shocking a perspective by stating the exact opposite of what the perspective apparently believes and then demonstrating the "truth" of such a statement in further dialogue is based on the paradox. No identification with mind, no paradox.

snowheight wrote:I'm not questioning your self-assessment (which seems to have elicited quite a bit of external validation) that you are a transcended person. Really. I'm not.

the key master wrote: Im actually not the transcended person, which is what makes it a transcended person.


I'm feelin' you on that one dude' ... express yourself in a hard (apparent) contradiction with some teeth like that and you'll have my non-intellectual understanding every time. Big bro' hug right to ya' Jason.

the key master wrote:This sounds like you questioning my self assessment


No, just the opposite, what I expressed was that such a question is meaningless.

"dis-identification" was a typo, should have been "mis-identification"
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby the key master » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:26 am

Heya snowey.

the key master wrote:
Im just saying the desire to end desire is contradictory and illogical

Paradox is contradiction and a violation of logic. It's as far as the mind can go -- notice that your technique of shocking a perspective by stating the exact opposite of what the perspective apparently believes and then demonstrating the "truth" of such a statement in further dialogue is based on the paradox. No identification with mind, no paradox.


My point in saying that the desire to end desire is illogical, really didnt have anything to do with the seeming paradoxical nature of the desire, and more to do with, whether or not the desire is necessary for what I sometimes refer to as "transcendance", which can be looked at as a process, which does imply time.

Creation and perception are the same. How could they not be? Thus, we could say, that I create what i want to perceive, or creation creates what it wants to perceive. Of course the notion of "wanting to perceive" doesnt even come into play until the dreamer, consciousness, steps into its own dreamscape to play a part in its own creation through what is sometimes referred to as a human mind, or person. How cool. In terms of transcendance, the issue isnt whether you are creating what you want to perceive, but how you are deluding yourself into believing that you "dont want" what you clearly "do want". Afterall, this is your own dream.

Law of Creation = Lc ; Law of Attraction = La ; Law of Repulsion = Lr

Lc = La + Lr

In order to become lucid in a dream, you first have to lose yourself in the dream. Thats how it works when you fall asleep, and thats how it works in the dreamstate sometimes referred to as being trapped in delusion. Putting aside whether one can vascillate in and out of mind identification, or reach a stateless state free of delusion, or however we might define enlightenment of which there is really no such thing in the dreamworld itself, unless a certain someone feels like being a jerkoff and pretending otherwise, as said earlier, you are creating what you want to perceive.

What does it mean for consciousness to become lucid? There is a danger in defining the state relatively, because of the tendency for the delusional mind to seek out a certain mind state. So when Tolle says, accept what is, or surrender, the ideological implications to a certain someone trying to do a certain something become apparent as the millions upon millions of spiritual seekers can attest to. What I advocate, is noticing gliches in the matrix, whenever the mind "does not want what is", and then doing the necessary legwork to weed out the bug in the system.

I dont really want to give a discourse on lucidity, but in terms of this desire to end desire, just point out that its something which can fuck with your mind on the psychological level, stemming more from the tendency to self seek and then fear the emotional implications, than a genuine desire to end desire.

Whats the point of creating a dreamscape without desire to play in it? Renovating a house is a cool thing to do. Sharing experiences with form within the dreamworld, pretty cool too. And we all have business to take care of from time to time. None of these things are an obstacle to lucidity, but rather, are the gateway to it. Your desires are the realest thing about you. We are all programmed to want certain things, and becoming lucid is the sure way to manifest them with what might appear to be no effort at all. This is your dream, and you have to learn your own rules. I advocate noticing and understanding unconscious forces so that the law of creation is not dictated by what you unconsciously want to repel.

Big bro' hug right to ya' Jason.




Peace, and some love too, hehe.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby snowheight » Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:08 am

the key master wrote:Creation and perception are the same.


Yes this is deeply so .... now the misunderstanding that I was referring to above is in the assumption that the creation is singular ... what I mean by that exactly I can elaborate with the promised discourse of what I think I understand about Quantum Mechanics in that other thread. It is related to the question "who or what is the Quantum Observer?" ... which is, I assure you, very much related to the recursive question of self-inquiry (who notices the noticer?).

On many levels in many instances this creation does seem intensely personal ... we create the way that something that arises in life is perceived, we weave the filters through which it is tasted -- how we react when the woman snaps at us or a clerk tries to short-change us or we get fired etc. etc. etc. -- but the obvious counter-example are things that are outside of the apparent control of an apparent certain someone (be they in the act of self-gratification or otherwise) such as a tornado or a war or a random act of crime ... sorry dude, nobody wants any of that stuff -- these counter examples are related to the notion of common experience such as the likelihood that we we got into a car together and drove dead east for long enough we'd both see the ocean.

--

and yeah Mr. Master, some Maple Leafs Eagles and Kruggerands clinking about in that last post for sure.

the key master wrote:My point in saying that the desire to end desire is illogical, really didnt have anything to do with the seeming paradoxical nature of the desire


And here the phenomenon of unique perspective is brought clearly into relief in that I disagree ... the point you are making has everything to do with the paradox.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby the key master » Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:59 pm

Hi snowdog. Again, I'll work backwards from your last post.

And here the phenomenon of unique perspective is brought clearly into relief in that I disagree ... the point you are making has everything to do with the paradox.


The phenomenon of unique perspective. Like your perspective and mine?? I think thats what you mean. Im not saying the desire to end desire isnt a paradox, just that, I don't have a desire to end desire, and I dont understand why a certain someone would. I know a thing or two about the desire to end suffering, and there aint nothing paradoxical about it. It can get a little up close and personal, but nobody in particular dont mind that one fuckin bit. A certain someone, typically does.

What I am on about is that suffering stems from the tendency to self seek through desire, and not from desire itself. So youre talking about this paradox of the desire to end desire, and I appear to have no interest in interweaving because i see it as a dead end, not because its a paradox, but because I see it as a delusional thought process. I used to think I had the desire to end desire, that freedom from pain was freedom from want, and Ive heard gurus like maharaj say desirelessness is bliss, and mooji say how liberating it is "to not want", and Im just pointing out how liberating and enjoyable it is "to not not want", which is completely logical, not paradoxical, and the essence of lucid dreaming. Spiritually incorrect, maybe. Big league status, definitely.

(be they in the act of self-gratification or otherwise) such as a tornado or a war or a random act of crime ... sorry dude, nobody wants any of that stuff


Firstly, many delusional certain someones do actually want what you are saying nobody wants. Secondly, if you have a problem with any of this stuff happening, then you are the one with the problem. Im not talking about glossing over societys ugliness with the "nothing happens" Abbot and Costello routine. Its bushleague delusion stacking, most of the time anyway. Im talking about owning everything which is happening within your own creation, from child rape, to suicide, to planes crashing into buildings. All of these things should be happening because they appear to be happening. To the extent a certain someone desires things to be different, is to the extent that certain someone can and will be a vehicle for change.

The origin of confusion and delusion spanning the spiritual landscape today is the belief that one is the vehicle. We are talking about desire here, which does imply time. If creation is perception, theres really no room for unique perspectives, or time, or desire. These concepts are meaningless without the unique perspective. With that said, these concepts are meaningful in not only understanding the delusions which form from within the unique perspective, but transcending the unique persective itself.

On many levels in many instances this creation does seem intensely personal ...quote]

Seems that way sometimes, even though it actually isnt.

we create the way that something that arises in life is perceived, we weave the filters through which it is tasted -- how we react when the woman snaps at us or a clerk tries to short-change us or we get fired etc. etc. etc.[/


The person is a menace. He or she cannot help but get in his or her own way as long as the belief is harbored that certain emotions should not be happening. This is the core of the issue which i am on about. You cant control the filter or how things are tasted, but you can understand why they are being filtered in a certain way. If you are yearning to feel certain feelings, from rejection, to vulnerability, to emotional pain itself, you will attract experiences in accordance with this yearning. So not only will intepretation be distorted, like everybody's out to get me even though very few actually are, but the energy field of the body itself becomes a beacon for the storm which "on the surface" wants to be avoided, but "beneath the surface", truly wants to be experienced.

Once all that beneath the surface stuff is dealt with, the desire to desire makes life an amusement park. Ride til you die. Thats it im done. (ever see boiler room?)
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby autumnsphere » Fri Jul 08, 2011 1:04 pm

the key master wrote:Creation and perception are the same. How could they not be? Thus, we could say, that I create what i want to perceive, or creation creates what it wants to perceive. Of course the notion of "wanting to perceive" doesnt even come into play until the dreamer, consciousness, steps into its own dreamscape to play a part in its own creation through what is sometimes referred to as a human mind, or person. How cool. In terms of transcendance, the issue isnt whether you are creating what you want to perceive, but how you are deluding yourself into believing that you "dont want" what you clearly "do want". Afterall, this is your own dream.


You crazy, you know? :D

This reminds me of a picture by Alex Grey (Tool's artwork guy). I don't know if I can even explain how I understand it, but I'll try.

Image

So, we have this person - notice that he has the whole world in his chest. Then notice that his skull is open and the extension of his skull builds a sphere around him. So he basically encapsulates himself. But what's beyond this sphere (where the brain's supposed to be)? Something encapsulating the sphere, ergo space-consciousness-void, you name it. So we have the world in the person in consciousness. So how does consciousness come into the world? Through the person, through the mind, but the person's world is isolated nevertheless.

"The world is really synonymous with the mind" - Ramana
Forget spiritual practice - just do drugs!
User avatar
autumnsphere
 
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:28 pm
Location: Bulgaria

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby snowheight » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:15 am

Jason,

If I were to disagree with or evoke a response from what you wrote in the first and 3rd stanzas of the last post the counterpoints would actually just point up the convergence of our expression. Thanks again for taking the time to peer in here.

Your LoA comments have evoked this thread.

Namaste
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby snowheight » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:32 am

the key master wrote: (ever see boiler room?)


Yes, and I can tell you from when I worked on Wall St. that the pent up energy spit out from the traders when they would use variations on that term was palpable.

Ever see The Prime Gig? -- similar themes ... but the final, wordless scene of that movie is like an education in and of itself.
Stop talking. Hear every sound as background. Look straight ahead and focus. Take one deep breath. This is you. This is Now.
snowheight
 
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Re: Thanks Jason

Postby the key master » Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:02 pm

dora said,
You crazy, you know?


Yah, ehm, i know. How badass is that alex gray pic. Maynard indeed is god, for the record.

snowey said,
Ever see The Prime Gig? -- similar themes ... but the final, wordless scene of that movie is like an education in and of itself.


Will scope it.
the key master
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 4:23 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest