Que Sera Sera

[Webwanderer]

hmmm, if you see 'universal order' in the sense of wanting to control it on a human level... maybe it's that.

Well, yes, it is the driving need for control.

My sense is that control isn't the root issue, it's a byproduct born of misunderstanding - a standard egoic problem. The driving need for control is of divine origin. It stems from the essential urge to create in this human/physical environment. It devolves into control because the ego-mind has no sense of its divine essence. Misunderstanding creative energy's true nature the ego attempts to control, or create, an environment to its (the ego's) liking based on its sense of fear and separateness.

As one's consciousness is raised, or awakened, out of the egoic perspective, the need for control abates and becomes more in line with its original purpose - to create in terms of harmony and an understanding of oneness. Control transforms into creative evolution. But to get the most for our creative efforts, alignment with Source, or maybe throwing some virgins into a volcano , is most beneficial. I'm sure there's not much difference.

WW

[karmarider]

Why would mind want to suffer? If you look at resistance, what is it? Resistance is the desire to resist. That's all.

I don't see that. Resistance is dishonesty. It's the current inability to see reality as is. Reality does not conform to beliefs, desire, delusion--that's resistance.

Fear is the desire to oppose desire, nothing more. The fear of death is the desire to oppose the desire to live. /quote]

Fear arises from the basic fear that I am not what I think I am.

By breaking thoughts down to their simplest form, mind can get a clear understanding of what's going on. So it is sometimes said that the person cant help but get in its own way.

Makes sense.

From this understanding, a certain someone can "own the desire to resist and suffer". When suffering or resistance "appears to be happening", it will be "noticed". Next, the "tendency to oppose resistance or suffering" will make itself "consciously known". This tendency is the first that can go "bye bye", which can free up some space for a deeper understanding to unfold. When mind understands that it "wants to resist", resistance is no longer a problem. This should make mind happy. Its getting just what it wants, it just never knew it!

Makes sense. I say it differently. Allow and watch.

It all boils down to the fear of emotional pain. The fear of pain is the desire to oppose the desire to feel pain. I sometimes call this the "tendency to repress"(resisting emotion), and if mind is doing that, its doing precisely what it wants to. This tendency to repress leads to the "yearning to feel certain feelings"(because theyve been represssed), which causes creation and perception to appear "out of whack", as if not desired or acceptable, which is of course delusional.

Ok, good. Really good.

[karmarider]

hmmm, if you see 'universal order' in the sense of wanting to control it on a human level... maybe it's that.

Well, yes, it is the driving need for control.

My sense is that control isn't the root issue, it's a byproduct born of misunderstanding - a standard egoic problem. The driving need for control is of divine origin. It stems from the essential urge to create in this human/physical environment. It devolves into control because the ego-mind has no sense of its divine essence. Misunderstanding creative energy's true nature the ego attempts to control, or create, an environment to its (the ego's) liking based on its sense of fear and separateness.

Okay.

As one's consciousness is raised, or awakened, out of the egoic perspective, the need for control abates and becomes more in line with its original purpose - to create in terms of harmony and an understanding of oneness. Control transforms into creative evolution.

One would hope so.

But then hope is not much of a strategy.

Doesn't it make sense to know the truth first?

[the key master]

kr said,
I don't see that. Resistance is dishonesty. It's the current inability to see reality as is.

Saying resistance stems from the desire to resist can be an oversimplification. Resistance is delusion in operation. There is no such thing as a "mental ability" to see reality as is, but there is a such thing as a delusional belief that a fragmented interpretation should be, or more pointedly could be, different than it is. Resistance always stems from interpretation, which would be grounded in the delusional belief that the mind could possibly be a certain someone which it cant. Almost paradoxically, the issue isnt that mind "cant be a certain someone", but that it wants to be and doesnt want to be at the same time.

[Webwanderer]

Webwanderer wrote:
As one's consciousness is raised, or awakened, out of the egoic perspective, the need for control abates and becomes more in line with its original purpose - to create in terms of harmony and an understanding of oneness. Control transforms into creative evolution.

One would hope so.

But then hope is not much of a strategy.

Doesn't it make sense to know the truth first?

Not sure why you're bringing up hope. It's nothing that I have suggested. I merely point to a perspective that I find offers some clarity on the human experience. Rather than hope, isn't it better to explore through an honest and open curiosity? Sure, we may find a particular perspective attractive, but we hope for its reality at risk to our continued unfoldment.

As to knowing the truth first, how would one determine that? Even direct experience is subject to interpretation. I'm not sure we as human beings can know the truth in certainty. At best we can discern relative truth - a perspective that is superior to some previous recognized misunderstanding. But can we say, at our level of perception, that we can ever know the full truth? Isn't the best we can do is to continue to gain in clarity so long as we continue to live?

WW

[snowheight]

Snowdog said,
I'll take a stab and say that this stuff in the dark corners is only something "what will be" if we are afraid to look honestly at these places (perhaps you would say something like "noone in particular looks around for that certain someone" or similar ... I don't have your flair for that particular facet of expression or your insight into psychology so please, refine away ...)

Willingness to poke around is a good thing. Noticing dark corners shines some light on them, "makes them lose their edge", so to speak. Light and consciousness are contagiously synonymous regarding matters of unconsciousness.

If a certain someone is looking for a certain anything, no one in particular sees this. No one in particular can never not see. Thats the beauty of being an absolute nobody: the clarity of the "vision", nothing blocks it.

We could say this "vision" is cultivated, but in truth its never not been here, never not been yours, never not been "what you are actually looking for". So I sometimes say truth wants itself. In human, relative terms, desire desires desire.

It gets very counterintuitive when mind desires resistance, and then deludes itself into believing that it doesnt. The "deprogramming" requires reverse logic, often times necessitating mind to run the loop, I want xyz because I dont want xyz. You literally, desire your way out. Desirelessness is fear. Quote me on that.

There's more to experience than meets the eye. If mind represses any thought or emotion "during" what "seamlessly appears", then mind will "yearn to be a certain someone for a certain reason". This yearning can be "noticed" as projection into future as a tendency to "want to control what will happen". This projection can be traced to past where the inability to control what happened was denied to protect the "separate self" from the "emotional body".

What can be done with that understanding? Well, nothing I suppose. If its truly understood nothing else needs to be done.

O.k. I've officially changed my mind about your new alias ... I think I'll call you Pollonius from now on. The most powerful rendition of the role I've ever experienced was by Bill Murray.

[snowheight]

Don't be mad at me for noticing and pointing this out snowy...

Que Sera Sera - means What will be, will be

But Queue Sera Sera - means Standing waiting will be, will be



The universe requires us to be specific, and sometimes our psyche skews that without us noticing.

Did you notice?

Nope. A in biology, B in spelling (English) and C in Spanish.

.... this explains why there was only one video posted with this tagline ... but the user's name was "zennman"

"standing still" will BE ... ok ... yes ... I see

... but then again 'Jen ... do you understand that you've mixed language metaphors?

"Queue" translates from English or French into "Cola" which translates back into English as "Tail".

"Tail will be" -- either something coarse or a reference to a mobius strip ("the end from the begining").

[smiileyjen101]

smiileyjen said - karmarider quoted: If however you have an understanding of universal order (as in of the balance of natural laws) you will see the human elements of going against the natural laws and the consequences.

karmarider said: Which is exactly the thing we see when people have an understanding of universal order as an external and judgmental God, or the very warped idea of karma, or heaven and hell, or science. There are many very-well developed theories of natural laws in probably every religion.

I'm not sure how other 'people' 'understand universal order as an external and judgmental God, or the very warped idea of karma, or heaven and hell, or science' but if the reference was the word use of 'consequences'... think of it no more or less than (and yes, I know this is in the domain of science etc) an apple falling downwards from a tree ..unless there are other forces of energy operating at that moment eg wind maybe, or a hand in it's path, it's likely to fall straight down.

Ignoring gravity doesn't make it go away. You can either accept the belief or test it and the results will predictably replicate. But lets go to greater understanding of it - through experience - noticing how other energy forms and environments interact with it - that's greater understanding.. surely?

eg: when I'm climbing a mountain there are obvious consequences if I'm not holding on. But when I'm 18m under the sea scuba-diving weighted down it's a whole other ball game.

Resisting reality is pretty pointless, going deeper into it - even though it may 'feel' counter to egoic instinct relies on suspending judgment and BEING in the moment. Playing with an undercurrent drift 'holding on' would tire my body energy and be a vast waste of my precious finite other energy source -oxygen. Playing within the drift is a hoot, until the sand pushed up from it gourging the seabed sticks in my regulator and blocks the flow of oxygen into my lungs. Then if I don't 'adjust' ...well, it's the same result as not holding on when I'm mountain climbing - I get a free ride to the world of no-gravity, no oxygen required.

Now, to say that one set of laws is more "natural" than others--is that an aid to fuller understanding? Or an obstacle?

I'm not comparing them to each other, I 'stand under' them, noticing what is within each, and also noticing the variants that might be within them, some in common, some not - this (maybe) leads to fuller understanding of each in their own measure/environment.

If you 'expect' 'justice' in a man-made court isn't that delusional?

What I have noticed through experience is that human-made laws are not universal in theory, application or outcome. Call the other type whatever you fancy if you have a problem with the word 'natural'. Human-made laws depend upon you being 'caught', the laws change, and 'punishment' for 'breaking' these laws is external to free flowing energy,

The other type just 'is' free flowing energy, as far as I can gather they are universal, they don't change depending on who you are or where you are, there is no 'punishment' there are only the hmmm how do I not use natural... results.. of energy meeting energy at different measures.

with the Rwanda thing.. I did say .. "at the very least" you would need to consider... but yes in all likelihood it may go back to the creation of mankind.

I'm still pondering the notion of comfort that this awareness gives to the mind as a panacea of delusion - if this were true why would so many resist it? And why try to I dunno replicate it in human form and kill others so it doesn't get out?

KR said: If you follow natural laws, you'll have good life; if you don't, you're doomed.

Is that what you think awareness means?

lol snowy!! trust you and me to get the a^se end of a thing!! zenn man is probably very smiiley!!

[karmarider]

O.k. I've officially changed my mind about your new alias ... I think I'll call you Pollonius from now on. The most powerful rendition of the role I've ever experienced was by Bill Murray.

hehe, Polonius, actually. Were the Bard alive today, he might have named Claudius' pontificating counselor the forum-ego.

Who doesn't have a bit of Polonius in them?

Neither a lender nor a borrower be...

[karmarider]

KR said: If you follow natural laws, you'll have good life; if you don't, you're doomed.

Is that what you think awareness means?

No, I don't. That's the whole point. It's about awareness, honesty, observance.

And when the strong drive to conceptualize reality emerges, we can look at that too.

[karmarider]

Not sure why you're bringing up hope. It's nothing that I have suggested.

Wasn't implying that you did.

I merely point to a perspective that I find offers some clarity on the human experience. Rather than hope, isn't it better to explore through an honest and open curiosity?

Yes, very much so.

Sure, we may find a particular perspective attractive, but we hope for its reality at risk to our continued unfoldment.

It's the finding of particular perspective attractive that can be an obstacle. At various times we all find particular perspectives very attractive. We defend, pontificate, promote.

How can we know if a particular perspective is not just another delusion? How can we know that it's not just another conceptual projection, another borrowed belief? The drive to slap on a conceptual framework onto reality is pretty strong. So how can we know?

I would say honesty--internal honesty. But honesty is a tricky thing. I know my mind is not fully honest. The intention is certainly there. Often it is much later, when some recognition hits, that I see the diabolical way in which the mind had tricked itself, wanted to trick itself. So how do I know that this too not another delusion?

Well, I don't know. As you said, you can continue with openness and honesty.

As to knowing the truth first, how would one determine that?

I don't know. I suppose I have some faith in the awakened who say that truth exists.

Even direct experience is subject to interpretation. I'm not sure we as human beings can know the truth in certainty. At best we can discern relative truth - a perspective that is superior to some previous recognized misunderstanding. But can we say, at our level of perception, that we can ever know the full truth?

No.

Isn't the best we can do is to continue to gain in clarity so long as we continue to live?

Yes.

[snowheight]

As to knowing the truth first, how would one determine that?

I don't know. I suppose I have some faith in the awakened who say that truth exists.

karma', by "truth" are you referring to something non-dual and beyond the mind? (...sorry, this seems pretty clear in context but rather than assume ... also interested in your answer ...)

[smiileyjen101]

karmarider said: And when the strong drive to conceptualize reality emerges, we can look at that too.

...is this in the 'no choice is wrong, just brings a different experience' kind of looking at it?

If so, I absolutely agree!

I'd also look at any 'resistances' while in the looking

[karmarider]

As to knowing the truth first, how would one determine that?

I don't know. I suppose I have some faith in the awakened who say that truth exists.

karma', by "truth" are you referring to something non-dual and beyond the mind? (...sorry, this seems pretty clear in context but rather than assume ... also interested in your answer ...)

Yes.

Which begs the questions what is non-dual and what is beyond the mind.

[karmarider]

karmarider said: And when the strong drive to conceptualize reality emerges, we can look at that too.

...is this in the 'no choice is wrong, just brings a different experience' kind of looking at it?

If so, I absolutely agree!

I'd also look at any 'resistances' while in the looking

'resistances', yes, and the tendency to cling to particular concepts.