Duality

[Ocre]

Duality is how one appears as two. (high-low, good-evil, observer-observed ect.)
Without this appearing as two, without this illusion of “not me/not one/not whole”, there wouldn't be a mirror-function for Awareness to appear to itself.

When the mirror seems to show (changing) “truth”, (=when experience/the observed seems to show “truth”) , what happens seems to follow order as if cause and effect take place in the mirror-image/experience/observed, while cause and effect only appear because of the mirroring. (awareness)

When the mirror is seen to show what appears, without the mirror being caused, (=awareness not doing anything, not being caused, having no qualities and no “no qualities”) , duality is seen through.

:-)

[sahyo]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[rich]

Some websites to view having definitions:Web Results | powered by AlltheWeb Results 1-10 of about 797,139




Duality
http://www.crewoftwo.com/


Lisa Gerrard
The Official Lisa Gerrard Site, contains information on all of Lisa's projects, Dead Can Dance, Brendan Perry, Pieter Bourke, Whale Rider, Gladiator, Ali, Insider, Nadro, Heat, Baraka, El Nino de la Luna
http://www.lisagerrard.com/


duality.org :: if you lived here, you'd be home by now
Description: some time, if ever. If you are actually someone I know and want to stay updated on my life, please email me at shannon (at) duality (dot) org. It's been great. =) Posted by Shannon at 12:17 AM | Comments (3
http://www.duality.org/


Duality 3.1
Description: Duality Links Download Support Developers Duality 3.1 Duality 3.1 is a massive upgrade to Duality bringing in many new features
http://www.conundrumsoft.com/Duality/duality.html


WAVE PARTICLE DUALITY
A series of pages on the natures of particles and waves and their similarities in the field of modern physics. These pages are intended to aid the reader in the first year Quantum Physics
http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~zgap118/


Francis Lucille, a spiritual teacher, Advaita, non-duality, nonduality
Advaita (non-duality, nonduality): Our consciousness is universal and eternal. It is the ultimate reality of all things. It reveals itself as happiness, intelligence, love, and beauty.
Description: a sanskrit word that literally means "not two". Synonyms of Advaita are non-duality (nonduality, non duality). Advaita is not a philosophy or a religion. Non-duality is an experience in which there is no separation between subject and object
http://www.francislucille.com/

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 25 2003, 02:29 AM
When the mirror is seen to show what appears, without the mirror being caused, (=awareness not doing anything, not being caused, having no qualities and no “no qualities”) ,* duality is seen through.
I totally 'believe' that. The question that then arises, however, is, So what? - meaning, What, if any, kinds of 'benefits' might derive from 'seeing' and 'relating' to everything wearing that 'vision' as a template?

Quite a few, it strikes me. But it also strikes me as potentially having a kind of depth-perception 'limitation' analagous to would accrue if one went around keeping only one eye open. Why? Because I 'see' that 'duality' is JUST one of two inseparably-paired facts of the referred to "awareness-not-doing-anything-not-being-caused" Thang's ex·peer·ience of LIFE; 'unity' (i.e., non-duality) being the other paired fact in the same regard. And I 'see' that either of the two ex·peer·iential 'lenses', duality or non-duality, can be used to 'see' 'through' the 'world' that is 'seen' via the other.

Quite a 'paradoxical' 'happening' this Shiva-LIFE-Dance. Still-n-transparent-aware-mind-ness somehow 'mingling' with colorfully-ripple-flow-changing-e·motional-spirit-ness -- very much like the two dance-'components' 'need' each other's 'being' for there any kind of ex·istence and ex·peer·ience to 'happen'. But one could just as well image·in that they 'inherently' 'belong' 'together' as a 'unit'; IOW, that they don't actually 'need' each other, but simply 'happen' to be dance-partner aspects of ONE dualistic-n-non-dualistic, still-n-moving, mind·faculty-n-spirit·faculty constituted Thang which just 'loves' LIFE-dancing!

No 'qualities' this Awarenesss has, you say? Maybe in it's, or 'a', nonex·istent ;) 'state' (though, IMO, there ain't any such thang) such 'no-quality' kind o' thang could and would be 'true'. I personally can't image·in-see Awareness even being able to ex·ist in the arena of 'radiant' LIFE unless it was 'infused' and 'enlivened' by/with some kind of 'spiritual' 'color' - like 'love' maybe? But then, anyone can de·fine (or de·finite·ize) that as being quality·less, I suppose, by concept-thinking of 'universal' or 'constant' love as being specific·quality-less, or sumpn like that.

Whatever one's de·finition·al tastes, when I say that I can't image·in-see Awareness even being able to ex·ist in the arena of 'radiant' LIFE without some spiritual-'component'-vibe-'coloring', by implication, I mean, any how, when, or where, including any hypothesized neti-neti 'no'·how, 'no'·when, and 'no'·where, because LIFE is ALL THAT IS (or ALL THAT IS is LIFE), so neti·bomb·inable snowphantoms :D simply cain't be in my view.

Hey, what's all this light-mirroring going on? Dontchoo little Life-buggers know it's lights out time already! Get back under your bed-covers, shut your 'I'-eyes, and be still you little Awareness-rats . . . raaght now; David, you hear me?, I say RAAAGHT now!!
:lol:

[a random hack]

Duality is how one appears as two. (high-low, good-evil, observer-observed ect.)
seems 'one' cannot appear without a second also appearing...


The Tao begot one.
One begot two.
Two begot three.
And three begot the ten thousand things.
- verse 42, tao te ching

[sahyo]

Duality is how one appears as two. (high-low, good-evil, observer-observed ect.)
Without this appearing as two, without this illusion of “not me/not one/not whole”, there wouldn't be a mirror-function for Awareness to appear to itself.


happening for 'areason'?

'anentity' which 'needs' which you call "a mirror-function"?

"illusion of"*is me/one/whole"not me/not one/not whole"*


When the mirror seems to show (changing) “truth”, (=when experience/the observed seems to show “truth”) , what happens seems to follow order as if cause and effect take place in the mirror-image/experience/observed, while cause and effect only appear because of the mirroring. (awareness)


no


When the mirror is seen to show what appears, without the mirror being caused, (=awareness not doing anything, not being caused, having no qualities and no “no qualities”) , duality is seen through.


is "duality" which to-can "seen through"?

[Ocre]

Hi David,

- the other paired fact in the same regard - -duality or non-duality, can be used to 'see' 'through' the 'world' that is 'seen' via the other.
Non-duality is a term used for seeing through illusional opposites David, it is not the opposite of “duality”… :blink: :D
I personally can't image·in-see Awareness even being able to ex·ist in the arena of 'radiant' LIFE unless it was 'infused' and 'enlivened' by/with some kind of 'spiritual' 'color' - like 'love' maybe?
If Awareness had qualities, it wouldn’t be “Unchanging”. What appears in Awareness comes and goes, but Awareness itself never started and never ends.

:-)

[Ocre]

Without the appearance of Duality, expression cannot manifest. (The illusional ‘space’ for object and subject to appear so observer-observed seem to be. Just as Asheera seems to direct words at Ocre and visa versa)

No-thing can express where all expressing takes place. But in the illusional ‘space’, questions can appear, only so answers might appear, while no question is real and no answer is ever needed. Expression never needs to happen 'differently' when this is seen. All talks to itself.

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
How are You?

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
What is God?

If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,

If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening called the mouth,

O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly Laughing- Now!
Hafiz rendering by Ladinsky

[sahyo]

Without the appearance of Duality, expression cannot manifest.


:lol:


Just as Asheera seems to direct words at Ocre and visa versa)



yes only 'seems' :D


No-thing can express where all expressing takes place. But in the illusional ‘space’, questions can appear, only so answers might appear


:lol:

[a random hack]

Someone should start wildly Laughing- Now! :lol: :D

[Ocre]

:D

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre -

David: the other paired fact in the same regard - -duality or non-duality, can be used to 'see' 'through' the 'world' that is 'seen' via the other.
Ocre: Non-duality is a term used for seeing through illusional opposites David, it is not the opposite of “duality”… :blink: :D

I said that these 'facts' were 'paired', not that they were 'opposites' - far from the same meaning - if I used or implied the word 'opposite' elsewhere in what I wrote, I retract it - I ain't gonna be your paper tiger on this one. ;)

David: I personally can't image·in-see Awareness even being able to ex·ist in the arena of 'radiant' LIFE unless it was 'infused' and 'enlivened' by/with some kind of 'spiritual' 'color' - like 'love' maybe?
Ocre: If Awareness had qualities, it wouldn’t be “Unchanging”. What appears in Awareness comes and goes, but Awareness itself never started and never ends.

Yes, yes, yes. But, again, my question is, so what? One of the things I 'sense', with people who attempt to 'advance' the 'valuing' of thangs like "God" and "Awareness" is that they so greatly 'value' the 'supremely' 'impregnating' while at the same time 'impregnable' 'nature' of such thangs, which gives them an 'unchanging' king-o'-the-castle kind of 'position' in their mental scheme of things, that they relegate all other aspects of Life, Being, Existence, whatever (which are also "God" and "Awareness", just in dualistically-'manifest' form) to the 'status' of 'insignificance', and even 'falsehood', as they are 'seen' to be so 'far' from (or so 'incomplete' in relation to) the 'supreme' truth.

Thus, it is 'sinful' to even have an 'image' of, not just of 'God', but of the human countenance as well -- anythang with 'soul'-awareness -- in Muslim orthodoxy -- that's why mosques etc. only have 'geometric' art-decor. The 'Taliban' 'routine' (no music or songs except those celebrating-praising Allah, no 'singing' birds as pets, etc., etc., etc.) is just an extremely 'absurd' extension of this.

Let me take the poem you posted and offer contrasting lines to highlight the value-'bias' (which is quite 'unbalanced' in my 'view'), reflecting the above-mentioned 'put down' of 'earthly' God-Awareness-Life-'manifestations':

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
How are You?

I have a thousand brilliant truths
For the question:
How are you?

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:
What is God?

I have a thousand brilliant truths
For the question:
What is God?

If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,

Depending on who is 'speaking' or 'singing' them, as here, they (words) can be darned good ways of communicating what one thinks-an-feels to another. One can get a 'sense' of what someone else thinks-n-feels from the words (and gestures, etc.) they use. And one can give someone else a 'sense' of what one thinks-n-feels oneself, in like manner. And I think that what one (any and every one) thinks-n-feels is a 'significant' component of 'the' Truth, which may be 'known' to a greater degree than otherwise (at least), via the artful use and interpretation of 'words'.

If you think that the Sun and the Ocean
Can pass through that tiny opening called the mouth,

Don't be silly, Hafiz. Even little kids know that what comes through the mouth are 'messages' about thangs, not the thangs themselves. Methinks the author, maybe as a result of being overly 'zealous' in wanting to 'put down' 'speech communication' because it falls so far 'short' of the thang he most values and is enamorously engrossed in, is putting quite a 'sophist' spin on the ball here.

The author also 'putting down' his own poetry-song in the same breath of course (since it is a 'word'-composite), but, IMO, because I think the author must surely recognize the beauty and (albeit one-sided) meaningfulness of his words, this is basically said-for-effect-'disingenuousness'. Like a lover 'complaining' to his amour that his words can never (o' sob, my 'aching' heart!) communicate all (or 'exactly') that he thinks-n-feels about and towards her (residual from our primate-pecking-order days: his acknowledgment-gesture of such glorious boo-hoo, there's-no-way-I-can-convey-what-I-really-mean, 'humbleness' 'wins' the lady-listener's favor!). :D

O someone should start laughing!
Someone should start wildly Laughing- Now!

Instaed of laughing, I find myself U]wincing[/U] [!] at the 'bald faced' tactics people use to try to 'elevate' their own 'position' (or what they 'love' or 'believe') by 'putting down' all others -- tar-n-feathering them with labels like 'lies', 'liberals', etc. I certainly empathize with and understand the 'passions' which 'drive' people to use and consider such 'means' to be 'legitimate' and 'appropriate' measures, however.

And, getting back to your statement, Ocre:

No-thing can express where all expressing takes place. But in the illusional ‘space’, questions can appear, only so answers might appear, while no question is real and no answer is ever needed. Expression never needs to happen 'differently' when this is seen. All talks to itself.

What, if anything, do you image·in resulting from all the 'talking' all is doing with 'itself', if you find anything de·ciperable in that regard? Do you have a 'vision' of anything 'humanity' (or Awareness-ensconced-in-humanity) is headed towards other than more/endless rounds of the same ol' false-question-unnecessary-answer-ex·pression-talking-with-itself? From what you've said so far, I would gather that the only thing that 'glistens' in your eyes is Awareness Itself, and everythang else, and I mean absolutely every thang else is just (the equivalent of) swirling 'hot air'. Am I right?
:)

[sahyo]

Duality is how one appears as two.



no :D

[DavidS]

Originally posted by DavidS@Oct 28 2003, 01:32 PM
David: the other paired fact in the same regard - -duality or non-duality, can be used to 'see' 'through' the 'world' that is 'seen' via the other.
Ocre: Non-duality is a term used for seeing through illusional opposites David, it is not the opposite of “duality”… :blink: :D
Let me have another go at this. Let's leave the word 'illusional' out of your statement since the "seeing through", phenomenon is relativistic.

Your statement then becomes: Non-duality is a term used for seeing 'through' opposites.

And following the same language, mine, deriving from what's said in the above quote, becomes: Duality is a term used for seeing 'through' uniglobs.

This latter functional modality is the 'norm' (or the 'normal' state) for "awareness" in its daylight-waking, here-and-now, planetary-ex·peer·iential-possibility surfing-program setting.

The former is a magically wonderful and, since we are all integral aspects of ONE Being after all, practically crucial calibration-setting for one's "awareness" base-camp, methinks.

The following "Thought For The Day" piece which arrived in my email today references the "base camp" thang quite nicely, I thought/think, nicely enough to make it worth sharing. It is about what you are talking about, isn't it, Ocre?

Enjoy, everyone . . . :)

Subj: Thought for the Day
Date: 10/29/2003 10:56:28 AM US Mountain Standard Time

Here's a good question: Where in our consciousness is the still point actually located?

The answer is not going to be exact, like a map that we follow to a point and say, there it is, that's it, the still point. Yet, in a sense that is what we are going to discover. Follow a certain path and you will get there.

The still point is really a way of looking at things rather than an actual place.

Ways of visualizing it are offered by many teachers and spiritual practices. So if we were to try to say where it is exactly we might say that it is in your skull. Visualize your brain as a universe. Move to the back of that universe. The further back you go the deeper the stillness becomes.

You will see things in motion, the energy of space and time, the universe and all its beautiful flowing. But you, yourself, the observer, are the still point. It is your own stillness in relation to everything.

The still point is the place of peace where we are no longer in motion. Everything else is, but we are still.

As we go deeper into the stillness we may notice everything slowing down, coming to a stop. Then we are at another level of the stillness, but we are still at the still point. Then time may seem to stop. We are drawn into a quiet place.

We could visualize it as a black hole. The gravity is so focused, so strong, that once we enter the stillness we are drawn inevitably to the center. Within the event horizon of the stillness everything changes, the laws of time and space shift and we are changed, loosened up, freed of certain patterns which had become fixed in our consciousness.

But that's what happens. The question still is where is the still point located?

Visualize a mirror. The world is a mirror reflecting back what we see. The reality is within us, the still point. Your eyes are at the surface of the mirror. Behind them is your own consciousness, the thing that creates everything that is being reflected, and the stillness is deep inside that, way in the back.

The way to it is simple. Be quiet. Be still and it reveals itself.

=============

Emanations
Copyright © 2003 by John MacEnulty
10/29/2003, St. Louis, MO

Subscription is, and always will be, free.
Email your request to
emanations@lbwebdesigns.com

Web site address:
http://Emanations.net/

Please feel free to forward Emanations
to anyone you think will enjoy it or benefit from it.

[sahyo]

not like he thought, hehe

[Ocre]

Hi David,

I said that these 'facts' were 'paired', not that they were 'opposites' - far from the same meaning
If you don’t mean paired as in “high-low”, but as in “dog-rootcanal treatment” what is it’s relevance to non-duality?

You ask “So What” (about awareness needing nothing, having no qualities and so on) , but proceed with words where “the 'status' of 'insignificance'” seems to bother you… ;) :D

Where do these “people who attempt…..” appear but in that same Unchanging Awareness?
Your version of the poem, changing lies into truths shows just that, there is no unchanging truth to ever be expressed, but all expression takes place in Unchanging truth.

It seems you investigate without investigating what is investigating, (not checking the tools) coming up of course with:
This is what I see
-All is THAT
of course it is, but from what I can see there are people who…
-All is THAT
yes, agreed, but there are views so 'incomplete' in relation to the 'supreme' truth… -All is THAT
-sure it is, but …..
What, if anything, do you image·in resulting from all the 'talking' all is doing with 'itself', if you find anything de·ciperable in that regard
There is no goal but there is no “no goal” either. The concept stems from “ending” en “beginning” and there are none but in thought. That’s why you can pick apart anything and reshape it (and see this “nit-picking” somewhere “outside” as a projection ;) ) . Without this new shape being anything else.
I would gather that the only thing that 'glistens' in your eyes is Awareness Itself, and everythang else, and I mean absolutely every thang else is just (the equivalent of) swirling 'hot air'. Am I right?
What you are, is what I am. The dance is how existence processes itself on itself, without goal or purpose, without ‘no goal or no purpose’. No me-ing, Be-ing.

:-)

(There's no room to read your other post.)

[sahyo]

ocre :)

ocre posting refinedthoughtconcepting
is still thoughtconcepting:


Where do these “people who attempt…..” appear but in that same Unchanging Awareness?



all expression takes place in Unchanging truth.



The dance is how existence processes itself on itself



(There's no room to read your other post.)







It seems you investigate without investigating what is investigating


seems ocre also, or wouldn't post concepting

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Oct 27 2003, 03:37 PM

Without the appearance of Duality, expression cannot manifest.


:lol:


Just as Asheera seems to direct words at Ocre and visa versa)



yes only 'seems' :D


No-thing can express where all expressing takes place. But in the illusional ‘space’, questions can appear, only so answers might appear


:lol:
:-)

[sahyo]

:lol:

[shifu]

Duality?…hmmm <_< . Isn’t it the two sides of realities taken as One? In the Oriental way of thinking-process, one side of reality can’t exist without the other i.e. hot and cold, masculine and feminine, light and darkness etc…. hence you can’t distinguish cold without hot, for example, so on and so forth.

shifu

[sonrisa]

in other words, yin-yang

[shifu]

[in other words, yin-yang]...

Yes, it is what may call paradox of the opposites! Like yen-yang it is all embracing. Prevalently, Western thought propagates Dualism that which is relevant in Greek Philosophies and Christiano-Hellenistic thought, that fervently dichotomizes truth and reality into two.

shifu

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Oct 30 2003, 03:27 AM
What you are, is what I am. The dance is how existence processes itself on itself, without goal or purpose, without ‘no goal or no purpose’. No me-ing, Be-ing.
Life's 'goal' or purpose' (by operational definition) is to live, IOW, to 'be', ex·press and propagate 'Itself' to the best of its ability.

Similarly, Creativity's 'goal' or 'purpose' (by operational definition) is to be creative.

Given your statement, "The dance is how existence processes itself on itself, without goal or purpose, without ‘no goal or no purpose’," I assume you think that Life and Creativity are completely 'fictional' conceptual in·vent·ions, so there's no 'real' 'point' in desiring or attempting to augment either (as a 'goal' or 'purpose'). Can't argue with that. Thinking/believing about your 'self' as having no 'me' or 'being' obviously suits you (or your goals and purposes, fictional though these may be).

"The faith of every man conforms to his nature. By nature he is full of faith. He is in fact what his faith makes him." (the Bhagavad Gita, Ch.17) Happy vegging! (I send you this 'happiness' wish gnowing it's actually an 'insult' to all my veggie co·beings who are actively involved in 'being' (i.e., in ex·pressing and ex·peer·iencing ramifications of their isness) and further 'developing' and 'propagating' such isness-flow in one way or another, or 'attempting' to), but it neverthless, I think, will help convey what I mean.)

[a random hack]

This is what I see
-All is THAT
of course it is, but from what I can see there are people who…
-All is THAT
yes, agreed, but there are views so 'incomplete' in relation to the 'supreme' truth… -All is THAT
-sure it is, but …..
:lol: :)
sorry, only just read this :)

[Ocre]

ATTD News Letter number 17 Monday, October 27, 2003


Question: Joseph's Campbell's "follow your bliss" has touched my heart, and yet, as much as I continue to look for my "bliss," I have not found it in a livelihood which would make my heart sing.

Are you suggesting that this is just "what is" and that there is nothing I can do to find my life's work and actually earn a living doing that? There is frustration, anxiety and great debt right now; do I have any choice in the matter?

Answer: As I am not familiar with Joseph Campbell's "follow your bliss" I cannot say anything about the contents of the book. The title seems to suggest that there is a separate you that can either follow or not follow her bliss. From the non dual perspective this concept doesn't make much sense.

It is not so much that you cannot do anything, but that there is no separate you to do it. Everything done or not done is how IT/God appears to him/herself. The sense of separation, the sense of being an individual, is also IT appearing AS the apparent individual. When seeing many beautiful statues and ornaments all made of go(l)d, you can either focus on all the different shapes or notice that in essence it is all One Substance.

Everything that happens is an encouragement to see what it is that really lives 'your' live. If there really was a 'you' in control of 'your' thoughts and feelings, would this you ever have an unhappy thought or emotion? Again I am not suggesting that you are helpless, but that there is no you to be helpless.

The problems you describe are painful. The more there is willingness to be with WHAT IS, regardless of what it is, the more there will be peace. The bliss your looking for gets obscured by the very looking, by wanting things to be different. As Chuang-Tzu said: Happiness is the absence of striving for happiness.

The more we want things to be different the greater the pain. We seemingly run into contradictions here, because if there is a wish for things to be different, then that is the way it is and that might be welcomed.

Bliss is not something you get, but it is what you essentially are. It is the Aware Space in which the opposites of pain and pleasure arise. It is the deep silence from which everything comes forth and into which it dissolves again. It is the uncaused joy, unaffected by troubles; like a mirror is unaffected by what it reflects. You are THAT, You are the mirror in which both the 'you' and the current pain arises.

If this is recognized and accepted by no one, there is peace. Suffering may continue or a way out may open up on the relative level. That what you truly are is Bliss itself and there is no one to follow or get it. It is simple and pure being. You Are That.
If or when you have a question you'd like to see answered in this newsletter mail to:
author@awakeningtothedream.com



http://www.awakeningtothedream.com/newsletter/

:-)

[sahyo]

not even:

is how IT/God appears to him/herself.

is also IT appearing



The more willingness to be with WHAT IS


"WHAT"?..."be with"?


that there is no you to be helpless.


but there is ayou'entity' which can "willingness", "be with? ;)


You are THAT


as though a"You" which "are THAT"?


You are the mirror in which both the 'you' and the current pain arises.


:lol:

The more we want things to be different the greater the pain.


recently happened eyes raining....
wasn't accepting or notaccepting, though may have seemed,
wasn't suffering or notsuffering
....wasn't bliss or notbliss

:)

[Ocre]

If or when you have a question you'd like to see answered in this newsletter mail to:
author@awakeningtothedream.com

;)

[sahyo]

:lol: :D

[sahyo]

If or when you have a question you'd like to see answered



ocre think can answer questions? ;)

[sahyo]

is how IT/God appears to him/herself.

is also IT appearing

The more willingness to be with WHAT IS

You are THAT

You are the mirror in which both the 'you' and the current pain arises.



no, not like youquoted, ocre :)

[rich]

Can website that ocre posted, provide answers to asheeras questions/problems? ocre posted this website:My Webpage (http://author@awakeningtothedream.com)IMO, Opening this site is quite informative. :) ;)

[DavidS]

Hi Ocre (caveat: another 'long' one, folks - skip it if you don't have the 'free' time-n-energy, or 'inclination', for a substantial 'chew') -

Thank you for the newsletter item - clarifies/amplifies your line of thinking. I can see that this 'theory' has certain 'applications' which, I am sure, some find quite 'suitable'. What follows, I hope clarifies some aspects of what I personally find 'deficient' or 'missing' in this 'theory', or 'approach' to LIFE.

Answer: As I am not familiar with Joseph Campbell's "follow your bliss" I cannot say anything about the contents of the book. The title seems to suggest that there is a separate you that can either follow or not follow her bliss. From the non dual perspective this concept doesn't make much sense.

The 'title' does not 'suggests' anything of the kind. What the author of the newletter has 'done', which is very similar to what you and asheera contiunually 'do' in relation to meaningful (IMO!) statements that others make, is to 'fixate' and 'seize' on words referencing an aspect of Being-Doing, in this case that word is "your", and use it as as 'basis' from which to launch into a "There is no 'separate' 'you'" kind of ex·position aimed at 'disqualifying' the meaning of what someone else says B}instead[/B] of actually/genuinely relating to the intended meaning of the the person's words, and thus/thereby to the concerns and involvements of person him/herself.

Reminds me of many conversations I've had with 'fundies' of all stripes, who 'fail' (refuse?) to actually/genuinely relate to othes of different persuasions, preferring instead to simply reassert their own 'creed' no matter what someone else (of a different persuasion) says!

I assume you 'agree' with the philosopy and derivative views and opinions of the author. Please read the 'title' thang again, if necessary. There is absolutely no assertion (implicit or otherwise) that 'you' implies that the person using the word thinks-n-feels that such 'you' is 'separate'.

This is one of many (most?) 'fundies' and 'partisan politicians' favorite 'tactics', IMO. No matter whatthey are asked, or what 'issues' they are confronted with, by others, they 'answer' with a statement that is "on message" in terms of some 'party line', simply ignoring (and 'you' 'champion' 'awareness', yikes!) anything/everything pertaining to the person(s)-they-are-ostensibly-talking-with's views, values, opinions, etc.

It is not so much that you cannot do anything, but that there is no separate you to do it. Everything done or not done is how IT/God appears to him/herself. The sense of separation, the sense of being an individual, is also IT appearing AS the apparent individual. When seeing many beautiful statues and ornaments all made of go(l)d, you can either focus on all the different shapes or notice that in essence it is all One Substance.

This is good 'preaching'. I especially like the fact that the author declares that the 'you', who (I agree) doesn't ex·ist as a separate being, has a choice (presumably, however, one might 'focus' one's 'awareness' in both ways, if nothing else by 'focusing' on 'diversity' and patterns involving various 'diverse' elements and the "it's all One Substance" 'view' in back-n-forth succession, like one might look at and appreciate a statue, let's say, by first 'appreciating' it from the 'front' and then from the 'back', or first 'appreciating' it from the 'right' and then from the 'left', or first 'appreciating' what the statue is 'composed of' and then 'appreciating' it as a 'shape', and then INTEGRATING what is 'appreciated' in both views.

I have spoken about the fact (IMO, it is a fact) that NOT integrating what is 'seen' in both views is the equivalent of choosing to only 'see' out of one of two available eyes, 'settling' for a 2-'dimensional' 'perspective'. What gets 'lost', if one chooses to do so, is 2+1=3-'dimensional' 'perspective'. Ignoring (overlooking? deliberately?) such and other similar inputs on my part, you continually, and I might add quite boringly (at this point, since you've already done this MANY times already), rerereassert the thesis that "it's all One Substance" over and over again despite the very obvious statements I have repeatedly which indicate my complete agreement with or 'assent to' this all-pervading/overarching FACT.

You continually choose not to relate to other (quite relevant, IMO) issues I raise and support with the factual (at least to 'me' it is 'fact'-based) logic. Do you have any idea of what any kind of mutual, or reciprocal relationship[/U] with 'different' or 'differing' others entails? It 'appears' to 'me' that 'you' do not, just that 'you' 'feign' to do so with "I am you are me", or the equivalent, sophist-sloganeering.

Everything that happens is an encouragement to see what it is that really lives 'your' live. If there really was a 'you' in control of 'your' thoughts and feelings, would this you ever have an unhappy thought or emotion? Again I am not suggesting that you are helpless, but that there is no you to be helpless.

'I' had a lot of very 'unhappy' thoughts and feelings in the past (so you or others understand this wasn't 'trivial' 'unhappiness', was 'seriously' 'suicidal' at one point). Leaving aside the issue of 'control' (which is another 'red herring' diversion of the issue, IMO), the fact which I can personally attest to is that 'my' thoughts and emotions are significantly "happier" now, both in terms of percentages (of 'happy' vs. 'unhappy' thoughts and emotions) as well as the 'intensities' of such thoughts and emotions.

Though I can't possibly 'prove' there was a 'significant' 'transition' or 'transmutation' in this regard (it is my 'subjective' assessment), I submit to you (and everyone else here) that this 'happening', at least in 'significant' 'measure', is the 'result' of 'my' having sought 'help' from 'helpful' others (caveat: not all who 'pose' as such are 'truly' 'helpful') and also, once I caught on to the operational dynamics, as a 'result' of my having engaged in an in-depth 'analysis' of the etiology of 'my' pre·judices (in both the 'fields' of 'thought' and 'emotion') and then both de·'conditioned' 'myself' in such regards as well as re·'conditioned' 'myself', via thangs like meditatively 'relaxing' and 'letting go' and 'adopting' a more 'positive' philosophical 'framework' and outlook-n-expectancy 'template'.

To "If there really was a 'you' in control of 'your' thoughts and feelings, would this you ever have an unhappy thought or emotion?," 'I' say this is a 'sophist' statment which sweeps pertinent facts under the rug. For your and others' consideration, I submit some of these from a piece of earlier writing I did elsewhen-n-where (note: this 'quote' increases the length of this piece by the equivalent of 2-pages, but I thought 'all' of it was 'necessary', or at least 'desirable', for any 'understanding' of what is being presented to be 'wholistic'):

Since it is the unseen and intangible source within you which dynamically determines your experience from moment to moment (therefore your fate in the future as well), what could be more worthwhile than creatively aligning Its direction and augmenting Its flow? No endeavor is more crucial than optimizing attitude and intention so they are maximally Life-affirming and Life-enhancing. No logical argument can counter this; take note.

(Note: I have deliberately not used phrases like 'reaching Godhead' and 'getting to Heaven', though what I am advocating is exactly that, because they erroneously imply an end-destination. In terms of Life, this is a false concept. In case, having found Life's mode of flux upsetting, you are one who has fallen prey to the temptation to set your sights on an illusion of some sort of utopian 'finale', let me disabuse you of the notion. The best, ultimately most glorious and joyful attainment is not a place or state that one arrives at and stays in. Staticity of any kind, if prolonged, leads to stagnation. In terms of Creativity, it is death! The ecstatic 'peak' such terms refer to is really not a final attainment or accomplishment, as many naively believe. Rather, as the words 'Eternal Life' clearly indicate, it is ever-ongoing creative process.)

If and as you undertake to actualize such potentiality, take care of first things first: Because it is the base on which intentionality builds, attitude should always be given priority, in terms of attention and discipline. Except as attitude is decidedly positive, it will undermine the accomplishment of constructive purpose and preclude creative fulfillment.

Take stock of yourself. To the degree that you lack faith in the adequacy of the Intelligence within you, your thought processes will be sabotaged; no matter how hard you try, you won't be able to successfully resolve and integrate the complexities that confront you. Likewise, to the degree that you deprecate quintessential Spirit, you doom any attempt at accomplishment to failure. To be positively causal you must believe in and rely on the power and goodness of the Life-Force.

You may not be able to steadily do so right now, especially if you are in the throes of failed aspirations and further suffering seems to be the only thing that is certain. But do not despair if this be the case; particularly when prior adaptation proves unreliable and efforts based on it insufficient, because the motivation to do so then naturally exists, you are perfectly 'positioned' to begin the process of transcendent self-evolution.

These are just nice-sounding words, you may say, if you are still caught up in negative repercussion and know no better. Nevertheless, however much pain and frustration you may have experienced or still be experiencing, I urge you to let go of any assumption that such will continue to be your fate in the future. Be hopeful. Even if your situation worsens in the short run, as long as you keep choosing to be positive, you may be certain that such worsening is just the residual result of prior misalignment, not an indication of what lies ahead. Really, ultimate outcome is determined by inner orientation and direction. Except as you derail yourself by thinking otherwise, your present situation has no bearing on the matter.

Whatever your condition, recognize you wouldn't even exist if the Life-Force wasn't with you in significant measure. Whatever else you may think of it, it was enough to provide you with the positive experiences you have had and sustain you, despite negative ones, till the present point. Take heart and be glad—such wealth and potency is still accessible and at your disposal. Only if and as you appreciate and embrace Life as beneficent opportunity will you be inclined to positively utilize its power.

Next, because you won't be able to proficiently execute and fulfill such purpose otherwise, truly understanding your context is what you should primarily dedicate yourself to. (Since accepting and recognizing what will make the 'best' of what is is all that this basically requires, anyone who sincerely desires to do so can accomplish this much. It is well within the range of your capability, I assure you.

You may do so by yourself or with the help of understanding others. Either way, it is essential that you register and keep being conscious of the ramifications of the fact that all that the world is and all that transpires within it is the cumulative result of what has, from moment to moment since time began, been attitudinally entertained and intentionally purposed. What you encounter in Life and what you 'naturally' think, feel and do (or fail to), at any given point, is the result of prior psychospiritual programming—that of antecedent others, your own till the present, and that of those you've been or still are involved with and related to. Therefore, though all things not contrary to Life Itself are possible, they are not necessarily so in short order. As anyone wishing to be an artist must do with his or her medium, to be creative, you must learn to work with the impetus of history, as it pertains to you and those around you in particular.

It may, and usually does, therefore take a fair amount of time and thoughtful dedication to bring about constructive change, especially if your goal is grand and your aim far-reaching. You must pace yourself and maintain your morale as you make your way. Creative process is more like a long-distance, cross-country journey, in which one must get through dense woods and across rivers and ravines (occasionally even deserts and mountains), than a flat-out 100-meter run.

<span style='color:teal'>If you are going to make significant progress, it is essential that you develop and sustain the kinds of attitude and intention that will enable you to recover from mishaps and setbacks and keep moving forward despite hindrance and adversity. Among other things, this means that, while fully recognizing the relative unimportance of each particular step that you take and therefore being relaxed regarding and indifferent to immediate result, you must nevertheless assiduously attempt whatever you think will lead to the best possible outcome at each point en route. For this to be the case, in addition to faith, hope, appreciation and understanding, which I have already emphasized, steadfast determination is also requisite in good measure.</span>

The above 'speaks to the 'issue' of potentially ex·ercisable 'influence' of one's own process (which, I submit, is quite possible -- NO 'control' is mentioned or implied.

The problems you describe are painful. The more there is willingness to be with WHAT IS, regardless of what it is, the more there will be peace. The bliss your looking for gets obscured by the very looking, by wanting things to be different. As Chuang-Tzu said: Happiness is the absence of striving for happiness.

I agree with the bit about 'striving'. Artists 'aim' to 'create' a 'picture' that 'pleases' (whatever they think would make them maximally 'happy' or 'satisfied' with the 'outcome'). Any 'striving' in that regard, as any artist worth his or her salt will tell you, will hinder and be counterproductive to the process.

The more we want things to be different the greater the pain. We seemingly run into contradictions here, because if there is a wish for things to be different, then that is the way it is and that might be welcomed.

At least the author of the newsletter piece is 'aware' ;) of the 'seeming' 'contradiction'!

Bliss is not something you get, but it is what you essentially are. It is the Aware Space in which the opposites of pain and pleasure arise. It is the deep silence from which everything comes forth and into which it dissolves again. It is the uncaused joy, unaffected by troubles; like a mirror is unaffected by what it reflects. You are THAT, You are the mirror in which both the 'you' and the current pain arises.

Yes, yes, yes. IMO, Life, or Creativity, also 'reference' something about the THAT which that 'you' [I]essence·ially are -- Awareness, Bliss, Life, Creativity, etc. all being 'features' of the same THANG. It is important to 'acknowledge' and 'love-embrace', rather than 'reject', what 'you' are, all that 'you' are, not just the 'bliss' 'feature' of it. IMO, if one doesn't simultaneously 'embrace' such 'other' (just in conceptual terms) 'features', any 'bliss' 'embraced' will be unstable. If nothing else, IMO, you (anyone) will eventually find 'bliss' and passive-'awareness' (alone) 'boring' and be 'impelled' to seek to life-creatively participate in something like forum-discussions to be 'happy'. :D

I submit that, if 'you' (anyone) really thought-n-felt were 'totally' (or 'maximally') 'happy' or 'blissful' just 'bathing' in the 'ocean' of your 'awareness', 'you' would have no motive-impulse 'guiding' ('impelling'?) you to participatorily engage here, so you simply wouldn't. The fact that 'you' participate in discussion contradicts the newletter author's thesis.

If this is recognized and accepted by no one, there is peace.

Huh? I assume the "no" is a mistake -- it should be omitted or changed to "any", maybe?

Suffering may continue or a way out may open up on the relative level. That what you truly are is Bliss itself and there is no one to follow or get it. It is simple and pure being. You Are That.

Yes, yes, yes. BUT not just "That" (here referencing only 'Bliss'), or just 'Awareness' (your 'favorite' God-shtick), as I hope I've given you reasoned argument to further entertain and consider.

The person submitting the 'Question' to the author said: Joseph's Campbell's "follow your bliss" has touched my heart, and yet, as much as I continue to look for my "bliss," I have not found it in a livelihood which would make my heart sing."

Mehinks that this is more likely than not just for the reasons (very good ones, IMO!) the author mentions in this connection, but because the person hasn't gone about 'creating' and 'living' "Bliss" in an adeptly functional (creative?) way (which my above-quoted excerpt attempts to 'coach' (any) readers on (the piece is footnoted; anyone interested in accessing these click here (http://www.godspeak2000.net/45/5037.htm)).

My bottomline: beware (all) 'simplistic' approaches on this score; not that my ex·position isn't also a 'simplification' in itself.

[sahyo]

david desire david 'seenheard'?

[a random hack]

though may have seemed:)

can we say a thing 'is', or 'is not', only because we are(or aren't) consciously aware of it? Does a 'result' ('eyes raining'...) imply a 'cause'? Can we say 'cause' becasue we see 'result'?

The 'title' does not 'suggests' anything of the kind. What the author of the newletter has 'done', which is very similar to what you and asheera contiunually 'do' in relation to meaningful (IMO!) statements that others make, is to 'fixate' and 'seize' on words referencing an aspect of Being-Doing, in this case that word is "your", and use it as as 'basis' from which to launch into a "There is no 'separate' 'you'" kind of ex·position aimed at 'disqualifying' the meaning of what someone else says B}instead of actually/genuinely relating to the intended meaning of the the person's words, and thus/thereby to the concerns and involvements of person him/herself. [/b]

seems we all 'seize upon' words to attempt to wrestle some meaning from them, and relate them to our own experience.... :D

[sahyo]

can we say a thing 'is', or 'is not', only because we are(or aren't) consciously aware of it? Does a 'result' ('eyes raining'...) imply a 'cause'? Can we say 'cause' becasue we see 'result'?


:)

when babyingeyesraining,
when thinkingyou is absent,
is seeming
"a thing",
"is"isnot",
"aware of it",
"cause",
"result"
?

[Ocre]

Been pretty busy these last few days, but I’ll respond when there is room. :D

:-)

[a random hack]

when babyingeyesraining,
when thinkingyou is absent,
is seeming
"a thing",
"is"isnot",
"aware of it",
"cause",
"result"
?



seems not... :D

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 2 2003, 04:58 PM
not even:

is how IT/God appears to him/herself.

is also IT appearing



The more willingness to be with WHAT IS


"WHAT"?..."be with"?


that there is no you to be helpless.


but there is ayou'entity' which can "willingness", "be with? ;)


You are THAT


as though a"You" which "are THAT"?


You are the mirror in which both the 'you' and the current pain arises.


:lol:

The more we want things to be different the greater the pain.


recently happened eyes raining....
wasn't accepting or notaccepting, though may have seemed,
wasn't suffering or notsuffering
....wasn't bliss or notbliss

:)
Willingness (to be with what is) does not have an owner or doer. It’s a way to describe attention not proceeding to “what will happen next? A reduced attachment to/belief in meaning.

What do you feel you are conveying when you express your crying experience?

:-)

[Ocre]

Hi David,

Your piece as a whole is too long for me to read.
If you want, point out what you would like me to read. (Cut and paste some parts maybe)

:-)

[Ocre]

can we say a thing 'is', or 'is not', only because we are(or aren't) consciously aware of it? Does a 'result' ('eyes raining'...) imply a 'cause'? Can we say 'cause' becasue we see 'result'?

seems we all 'seize upon' words to attempt to wrestle some meaning from them, and relate them to our own experience....*


It's more like the constant staring of the eye to find out what it is seeing, dropping away as “meaningful”, since neither staring, nor cross-eyed glaring, nor a relaxed gaze ever show anything that did not appear because of this very peering, cross-eyed glaring and relaxed gaze..

And this dropping away is no decision by “some-one”, just as the heart does not decide to beat faster when there is exertion.
It just happens within the inseparable connectedness.

Trying to find the order in this connectedness, is not outside this connectedness. It’s like an eye wanting to know itself, in front of which countless matters seem to appear, so that from the unchanged in all these images, what the eye is will be seen.

:-)

[sahyo]

Willingness (to be with what is) does not have an owner or doer. It’s a way to describe attention not proceeding to “what will happen next? A reduced attachment to/belief in meaning.

What do you feel you are conveying when you express your crying experience?


when babycrying is "an owner or doer", ocre?

ocre think was "conveying"?

was somenoanythin(k)g for ocre to analyze?

:)

[sahyo]

It's more like the constant staring of the eye to find out what it is seeing, dropping away as “meaningful”, since neither staring, nor cross-eyed glaring, nor a relaxed gaze ever show anything that did not appear because of this very peering, cross-eyed glaring and relaxed gaze..


"find out"?...."what it is seeing"?

does ocre think ocre needs analyzing?


And this dropping away is no decision by “some-one”, just as the heart does not decide to beat faster when there is exertion.
It just happens within the inseparable connectedness.


"within"?

which thinks"within the inseparable connectedness"
as though 'aseparate' which is " within the inseparable connectedness" ocre?


Trying to find the order in this connectedness, is not outside this connectedness. It’s like an eye wanting to know itself, in front of which countless matters seem to appear, so that from the unchanged in all these images, what the eye is will be seen.


which thinks" this connectedness",
as though 'a separate' which is " this connectedness" ocre?

[Ocre]

when babycrying is "an owner or doer", ocre?
No, nor is there when words are written. I was referring to:
“recently happened eyes raining....
wasn't accepting or notaccepting, though may have seemed,
wasn't suffering or notsuffering
....wasn't bliss or notbliss”
ocre think was "conveying"?
I asked if you were and if so, what.
(Asheera think was “thinking”?)

:-)

[Ocre]

"find out"?...."what it is seeing"?
“the staring of the eye to find out what it is seeing”= The observer approaching the observed as if object and subject are real.

does ocre think ocre needs analyzing?
How can there be a need when there is no “needy”? (no doer)

"within"?

which thinks"within the inseparable connectedness"
as though 'aseparate' which is " within the inseparable connectedness" ocre?
Within connectedness=not separate.
There is no which thinks…, do you still see which thinking Asheera?

:-)

[sahyo]

recently happened eyes raining....
wasn't accepting or notaccepting, though may have seemed,
wasn't suffering or notsuffering
....wasn't bliss or notbliss


Willingness (to be with what is) does not have an owner or doer.


'a-some-no-any-one'-entity-"willingness"?


It’s a way to describe attention not proceeding to “what will happen
next?


"not proceeding"?
"what"?
"next"?

:)

[Ocre]

'a-some-no-any-one'-entity-"willingness"?
a what? (I can’t see what you’re asking here)

not proceeding"?
"what"?
"next"?

From this I can’t gather what isn’t clear to you. If you can, rephrase.
(For now I’m going to bed. I’ll read you tomorrow, 'till then.)

:-)

[sahyo]

does ocre think ocre needs analyzing?


How can there be a need when there is no “needy”? (no doer)


did "does ocre think ocre needs analyzing?"
say "needs" isnotis?....did say 'doernotdoer'?

does ocre think ocre needs analyzing?

[Ocre]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 5 2003, 06:04 AM
does ocre think ocre needs analyzing?


How can there be a need when there is no “needy”? (no doer)


did "does ocre think ocre needs analyzing?"
say "needs" isnotis?....did say 'doernotdoer'?

does ocre think ocre needs analyzing?
Does Asheera think ocre think s ocre needs analyzing?

(times two I see...)

:-)

[sahyo]

I’m going to bed



:)

[sahyo]

Does Asheera think ocre think s ocre needs analyzing?


rewording:
does ocre think ocre needs to analyzing?

:)

[sahyo]

:)

'a-some-no-any-one'-entity-"willingness"?
a what? (I can’t see what you’re asking here)

"awhat"-who-entity-"willingness"?

not proceeding"?
"what"?
"next"?

From this I can’t gather what isn’t clear to you. If you can, rephrase.

without ocre isisn'ting "which",
which thought:


It’s a way to describe attention not proceeding to “what will happen
next?


?

[rich]

maybe eyes are tearing from eye strain, especially those who read some of the caveat posts posted in thebigview.comMy Webpage. I do not have the patience to read anything as long as some of the stuff posted here, because it seems to me, it is just posting words for its own sake. Sorry! :(

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 2 2003, 03:17 PM
david desire david 'seenheard'?
Yes, fer sure, 'I' 'desire' seenheard.

I am equally comfortable with such 'I' and 'desire' being attributed to the 'David'-person[a]-finger 'itself' OR to the Life-Force-"God"-hand Itself (i.e., in the latter case, that THANG which gives 'rise' to both the 'being', or 'Life-happening', name-labeled 'David' and the 'being', or 'Life-Happening', which ;) chose, or was im·person·ally impelled, to assume the name-label 'asheera' - and everyone and everything else 'in' ex·istence, of course).

'I' am not 'hung up' on 'David' as you seem to be. Since it seems to be such a 'stumbling block' for 'asheera', please consider the possibility that 'asheera' might (?) be able to relate to 'me' better (i.e., more 'comfortably') if 'asheera' image·ined that it was Life-Force-God speaking/writing using the 'David' Life-happening as a vehicle to do so here and now.

Again, yes, the 'I' being referenced definitely desires to be seen and heard and related to in a way which is not 'David'-dismissive (or dismissive of any 'other' 'persona'-vehicle). "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matthew 25:40) speaks to this 'issue'.

Can you/will you seehear 'me' in this 'form', asheera?

P.S. Also 'speaking' to this 'theoretical' 'issue' (from Hawkins' The Eye of the I) (albeit in terms which 'categorically' separates/differentiates 'enlightenment' from 'normal' states, which 'separation' is an 'illusion' in my view):

Q: After what has been called enlightenment, what remains of the former personal self?

A: The inner state is similar to sleep in that there is silence, peace, and stillness. There is no volition, movement, or form. There is an absence of thoughts or mental activity.

It takes volition and energy (asheera!)] to focus attention from the formlessness of the Self to the processing of information. Consciousness in its higher states merely notes the interaction of essences, presences, and significances as they are prevailingly held by the world. To pay attention to detail and form takes more energy and is accomplished only by an act of will as a response to the value of life. What is left of what the world would consider the personal self is a shadow of the former persona, but it has no desires, wishes or needs. It has no desire to control events, circumstances or people. It lacks nothing within itself; therefore, it does not seek gain inasmuch as all is complete at every moment. There is not even a desire for continuance. There is nothing one needs or wants to experience.

The above is just a 'mini' excerpt; there's much more to Hawkins' exposition, of course.

Regarding 'energy' being 'volitionally' directed "as an act of will as a response to the value of life", please note that it was (reportedly at least) after his full 'awakening' or 'enlightenment' that Gautama in·vent·ed and promulgated the ('his'?) "four noble truths" (existence is suffering (dukhka); suffering has a cause, namely craving and attachment (trishna); there is a cessation of suffering, which is nirvana; and there is a path to the cessation of suffering) and "eightfold path" (right views, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration), which any elementary school teacher worth her or his salt will tell you has all the earmarks of a care·full·y designed 'lesson' plan. Strikes me that 'he', too (or THAT which ex·pressed Itself through 'him', as well) definitely 'wished' or 'desired' that such be seenheard.

Do you have a 'problem' seeing/accepting 'desire' as a motivational factor giving rise to 'his' verbal ex·pressions? If you don't (but still have a 'problem' with 'my' way of ex·pressing life-valuing and -honoring 'truth'), maybe image·in what his response would be if you asked him "gautama desire gautama 'seenheard'?" I'll bet 'you' can do this (imagining) if 'you' really want to, asheera. If you don't, that's quite OK/alright/fine with 'me' too - 'I' don't 'suffer' if 'my' 'desire' to have 'my' meanings seenheard aren't full·filled by anyone 'in particular', though I'd 'prefer' they were, and so continue to ex·press such meanings as clearly and cogently as David-vehicle-possible.
:)

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Nov 4 2003, 01:40 AM
Hi David,
Your piece as a whole is too long for me to read.
If you want, point out what you would like me to read. (Cut and paste some parts maybe) :-)
OK with me for you to not read. Enough fast-food-for-the-soul-McDonaldized-sound-bites in meaning-diet-space already. Not my cup o' tea. Also, don't 'want' to be that kind of 'chef'.
:)

[sahyo]

Since it seems to be such a 'stumbling block' for 'asheera',


david"seems"ing"


please consider the possibility that 'asheera' might (?) be able to relate to 'me' better (i.e., more 'comfortably')


"comfortably"?...."better"?


if 'asheera' image·ined that it was Life-Force-God speaking/writing using the 'David' Life-happening as a vehicle to do so here and now.


daviddesires"image·ined"ing like david"image·ined"ing? :)


Again, yes, the 'I' being referenced definitely desires to be seen and heard and related to in a way which is not 'David'-dismissive


when 'paining' absent, is daviddesire"related to in a way which is not 'David'- dismissive"?
....which desires"seen and heard and related to"?


(or dismissive of any 'other' 'persona'-vehicle).


is "other"?, or is david'seeming'whichnot?....is 'david'? ;)


Can you/will you seehear 'me' in this 'form', asheera?


was asheera not listeninged?, or is davidthinking'wasn't listeninged' when wasn't responsinged how'the way' daviddesired? :) ....is asheera?


which any elementary school teacher worth her or his salt will tell you has all the earmarks of a care·full·y designed 'lesson' plan.


may if thinking not absent


Strikes me that 'he', too (or THAT which ex·pressed Itself through 'him', as well) definitely 'wished' or 'desired' that such be seenheard.


no


I'll bet 'you' can do this (imagining) if 'you' really want to, asheera.


:lol:


If you don't, that's quite OK/alright/fine with 'me' too - 'I' don't 'suffer' if 'my' 'desire' to have 'my' meanings seenheard aren't full·filled by anyone 'in particular',


suf'desire'fering

h'ggg

:)

[Ocre]

It’s a way to describe attention not proceeding to “what will happen
next.

?

Where attention is directed (without any-one directing it) 'reality’ appears.
Willingness to be with what is, is attention not being directed at what something might mean, as if there is something to either be threatened or cherished.

:-)

[Ocre]

Originally posted by DavidS+Nov 6 2003, 02:17 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DavidS @ Nov 6 2003, 02:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ocre@Nov 4 2003, 01:40 AM
Hi David,
Your piece as a whole is too long for me to read.
If you want, point out what you would like me to read. (Cut and paste some parts maybe)* :-)
OK with me for you to not read. Enough fast-food-for-the-soul-McDonaldized-sound-bites in meaning-diet-space already. Not my cup o' tea. Also, don't 'want' to be that kind of 'chef'.
:) [/b][/quote]
You mean, what 'you' are, is not what 'I' am? :D

:-)

[sahyo]

Where attention is directed (without any-one directing it) 'reality’ appears.

which thdiattention is directed (without any-one directing it)rectorinks?
....is directed when thinking absent?

'reality' aWhere?


Willingness to be with what is

'awho' which willingness?
....is willingness when thinking absent?


;)

[Ocre]

A question about “when thinking absent” is just as much thinking Asheera. (There are no “real” questions)
Nothing needs change, nothing needs to be pointed out as if it is being pointed out to any/some-one. There is no true need ever.

All teachings, all teachers, all learning, all pupils, all appears in Awareness without ever influencing Awareness.
Enjoy how limitless ‘you’ show yourself to ‘your’self, through me, through David, through the rain, through all that appears. Without it ever having unchanged meaning.

:-)

[sahyo]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Nov 6 2003, 04:13 AM
You mean, what 'you' are, is not what 'I' am?
yes ... in the sense that an 'apple' is not an 'orange' ...

no ... in the sense that an 'apple' and an 'orange' are ex·pressions/manifestations of the same 'Life-Force' thang.

Let me know what is said above is not completely clear to you, IOW if you think-n-feel that 'apples' and 'oranges' are no 'different'.

I'll bet 'you' can process/handle both meanings simultaneously if 'you' really want to, Ocre. This gets back to my 'point' about using two 'eyes' (or I's, or 'frames' of reference) instead of just one in order to more fully 'see', 'understand', and 'appreciate' what is being (or attempting to be) communicated.

[a random hack]

This gets back to my 'point' about using two 'eyes' (or I's, or 'frames' of reference) instead of just one in order to more fully 'see', 'understand', and 'appreciate' what is being (or attempting to be) communicated.


Why stop at two? :rolleyes:

[Ocre]

If all is “ex·pressions/manifestations of the same 'Life-Force' thang”, what/who is there to “more fully 'see', 'understand', and 'appreciate” as if it is not that same Unchanging?

:D

[sahyo]

splash

[...]

..asheera, if you got it lying around, could you post the one with; "in de crescent of drops falling"?

[sahyo]

would, but
which lying around none with words
"in de crescent of drops falling"

:)

[sahyo]

oh...was lying around afterall :)

[sahyo]

A bottlenosed song whales through timeless seams
it sings about dreams and how Love redeams
on the waves, in the crescent of drops falling
your bliss and joy, the heartbeat that never stops calling

What is in your element but the sacriledge fullfilment
of the Moment that can never be spent in idle resententment
there is no road in this ocean to go, just a singing flow
you'll have to re-member, so disrobe to the grandeur

and be what you've always have been, but never had seen
looking in the eyes of another, the sign that didn't bother
you before, but it does now even more
and where some close the door too

I see me when i look at you.

[a random hack]

:)

[...]

..thank you!

[DavidS]

hack: Why stop at two? :rolleyes:

David: No why - the more the 'merrier', IMO.

Ocre: If all is “ex·pressions/manifestations of the same 'Life-Force' thang”, what/who is there to “more fully 'see', 'understand', and 'appreciate” as if it is not that same Unchanging?

David: You totally miss (disregard?) my 'point' about double-'vision' (which integrates both 'personal' and 'transpersonal' features of the 'happening' we person·alities are all 'unique' 'aspects' of).

asheera: I see me when i look at you.

David: That's what 'I' 'see' 'you' as doing, too. Except, the 'me' 'I' 'see' 'you' 'seeing' is a 'projection' of 'asheera', quite unrelated/relating to any other 'I', including 'my' 'David' 'self'.
:)

[sahyo]

asheera: I see me when i look at you.

David: That's what 'I' 'see' 'you' as doing, too. Except, the 'me' 'I' 'see' 'you' 'seeing' is a 'projection' of 'asheera', quite unrelated/relating to any other 'I', including 'my' 'David' 'self'.



thinkingdavid quoted quoting which not quoting :D

[Ocre]

…my 'point' about double-'vision' (which integrates both 'personal' and 'transpersonal' features of the 'happening' we person·alities are all 'unique' 'aspects' of).

There are no aspects of the Unchanging, no features to awareness.
No description of, pointing out or finding order in Awareness appears outside Awareness. No object no subject

http://www.awakeningtothedream.com/newsletter/

>...cut...<
So if you do not like the answer, here are a few questions:

* What is the difference when watching a movie, believing it is all real and knowing it is only a movie?
* What is the difference between seeing a mirage in the dessert, believing it is a lake and knowing that it is a mirage?
* What is the difference between seeing a magician on stage sawing your lover in half, believing it is real and knowing it is a simple trick?

We can say 'no difference' because whether we know it to be an illusion or not, we see the same thing. We can say that it makes all the difference because there is not the same investment in what is seen.

>....cut.....<

:-)

[sahyo]

No description of, pointing out or finding order in Awareness appears outside Awareness.


"finding order in Awareness"?....
an"order" to find? and an'entity' to find "order"?
...."order"notorder?

;)

[Ocre]

Isn’t that stating/questioning the obvious? ;)
How can there be an absolute order to find as if there is something absolute finding order?

THE OBSERVER AND HIS OBSERVATION, AS WELL AS THE WORLD OBSERVED, APPEAR AND DISAPPEAR TOGETHER. BEYOND IT ALL THERE IS THE VOID. THIS VOID IS ONE FOR ALL

(Nisargadatta Maharaj)

:-)

[sahyo]

did reading, ocre?

[DavidS]

Originally posted by Ocre@Nov 11 2003, 02:12 AM
So if you do not like the answer, here are a few questions:

* What is the difference when watching a movie, believing it is all real and knowing it is only a movie?
* What is the difference between seeing a mirage in the dessert, believing it is a lake and knowing that it is a mirage?
* What is the difference between seeing a magician on stage sawing your lover in half, believing it is real and knowing it is a simple trick?
Hi Ocre (BTW, I 'like' your 'answers') -

I 'get' and vision-'agree' with the 'distinctions' you make, except with your relative :D valuations and de·valuations you make regarding the 'seer' (or the seer's 'core' 'state') and what is 'seen'.

My 'argument' is that both 'thangs' are 'real', in their own right, though one may be 'permanent' and 'unchanging' the other 'temporary' and 'changing'. Like 'yin' and 'yang', like 'being' and 'doing', they are both part of the same UNITARY super-'phenomenon'. I submit to you, that there is never the one without the other.

You have repeatedly 'extolled' 'unchangingness' (as 'real') and 'put down' everything ELSE as 'illusory' and 'unreal'. And I have repeatedly 'challenged' such statements with the question "So what?"

I submit that the 'movie' (i.e., 'birth', 'death', 'change', 'growth', 'evolution', 'learning', etc.) is really going on! And there are benefits to really participating in it attentively/discerningly/life-playfully -- tho of course, I too think one is in a better position to do so if one is simultaneously 'aware' that is is "only" a 'movie', so one doesn't get totally 'shook up' by and 'caught up' or 'lost' in the movie-happenings, is able to 'retreat' from it and make 'free-will' decisions from a position of complete 'security', allowing for 'detached' understanding, comprehension, etc.

Your exclude·sive emphasis on thangs like 'unchangingness' reminds me of some of the emotional underpinnings of the historcial 'argument' between Ptolemaic and Copernican astronomical 'visions'. The thing which made the (inherently 'clutzy') Ptlolemaic view 'attractive' to its adherents ;) was the 'notion' that 'heavens' were immutable. This made the view very 'attractive' to those who feared 'change' - the BIGgest bugaboos, in this regard, historically being 'dis·ease' and 'death-separation' because of the general level of people's ego·centric·ity.

The 'Eastern' 'fixation' on and 'adherence' to a philosophy in which 'places' thangs like 'unchangingness' and 'voidness' on the 'altar', and 'holds on' to such and only such as being 'sacred' (i.e., of 'supreme' value), and 'resists' any movement to elevate what goes on in the realm of planetary movie-life to the same or equivalent 'real'- or 'sacral'-value level, IMO, stems from people's fear of and aversion to what they ego·centric·ally view as 'terrible' aspects of the 'movie' ('dis·ease', 'separation' and 'death', etc.).

But 'we' as a species-distributed-awareness-constellation have come a loong way since the days when 'immutability' was considered a 'supreme' value (way back 1000's of years ago!). We now 'see' that things like disease, separation and death actually SERVE the cause of LIFE (or AWARENESS). Modern psychology, for instance, recognizes that ex·peer·ience of such things, 'separation' for instance, can be one of the best 'stimuli' and 'opportunities' for people to find their 'inner' (non·ego·based) 'center' and begin to 'value' and 'rely' on IT -- this, of course, only if it such 'happenings' are 'navigated' or 'surfed' adeptly (hence my emphasis on 'paying attention to' and 'learning' to do so 'successfully').

The 'disparagement' and 'dismissal' of 'worldly happenings' or 'worldly observations' or 'worldly ex·peer·iences' as'unreal' or 'illusory', IMO, actually hinders such process, since people then live as though nothing that happens matters in terms of having derivative (and ongoing!) value (qualification: tho not necessarily in all cases, at least not to the same degree - there are always 'individual' variations in every regard).

The 'movie' is where persons or personal souls (i.e., movie-viewers) actually learn, grow, and evolve into the realization of what is of 'supreme' value, based not on mere 'logic' and 'belief' but on personal act·ulaization and ex·peer·ience. This is where they 'learn' the 'supreme' value of 'love' for instance -- it is not when they are sitting, eyes closed, drinking from their inner teat, that is where the 'fountain' of 'love' pours forth, but in the midst of the 'field test' of LIFE that the 'golden' value (as opposed to the 'pleasure') of 'love' is actually 'learned' in relation to 'others' in practice. Just image·ining-n-saying·promulgating that 'others', for instance, are an 'illusion' totally short-circuits this - this is 'clearly' 'evidenced' in the word-streams of such thinkers and sayers right here in this forum, I think.

We can say 'no difference' because whether we know it to be an illusion or not, we see the same thing. We can say that it makes all the difference because there is not the same investment in what is seen.

Am not totally clear on what you mean by this, but I submit that there has to be an 'investment' in LIFE for additional 'riches' (or richies :D ) to be 'generated', but is is important to 'invest' 'wisely' - not out of 'fear' or 'grasping' or (any proefessional stock-investor will, I think, corroborate this). Here's a piece from some of my writing elsewhere, which I think rounds out this 'picture':

Many who consider themselves 'true followers' of Vedic teachings . . . proceed quite myopically, for example, not appreciating, not availing themselves of, and not sharing with others Life's true richness and beneficence. Just as would happen if college-aspiring youngsters decided not to be involved with what was offered in their school curriculum because they judged it 'inferior' to 'higher' learning, such individuals fail to obtain and dispense educational benefits, accessible in their present context, which are prerequisite to further growth and development. (If you are one such, take the following to heart: "This phenomenal creation, which is both ephemeral and eternal, is like a tree, but having its seed above [b]in the Highest and its ramifications on this earth below…. When the Supreme Lord enters a body or leaves it, He gathers [the] senses together and travels on with them, as the wind gathers perfume while passing through the flowers. He is the perception of the ear, the eye, the touch, the taste and the smell, yea and of the mind also; and the enjoyment of the things which they perceive is also His. The ignorant do not see that it is He Who is present in life (which you regard as just an 'illusion', Ocre) and Who departs at death." The Bhagavad Gita, Ch.15.)

It is a wonderful ex·peer·ience to have the opportunity to have this sort of a conversation with an 'other' ;) as cogently thoughtful and articulate as you, whether 'you' consider this 'other' that I reference to be no more than an 'illusion', or otherwise, Ocre. Thank you.

David :)

P.S. The above excerpt is from a footnote, one of several relating to a more extensive dealing with associated matters. If any one is interested in the whole piece (and other footnotes)may be accessed at http://www.godspeak2000.net/6a/6052.htm. The particular footnote references is #6:54e.

[Ocre]

I didn’t read your post completely or thoroughly David, but the blue part in my previous post is from the url that I put there. (Newsletter from attd)

Discussion about real/unreal, true/untrue will be endless when there seems to be “a nameable reality or an objectifiable truth.”
If will never be saturated when that point isn’t addressed, but that point being addressed is not a need. Attention is where it is.

From another forum:
* Only when fascination with this searching is over, the mirror itself will be seen, without any ‘one’ seeing it. The mirror, the Seeing, The Unchanging, cannot be seen by any one looking, that’s why only when the “one looking” is seen through, the Unchanging is there as something that never was missing.-
-What is the cause of the fact that the fascination is over? It can't be me nor my trying to or me applying methods. So the searching is over when the searching happens to be over?-* When fascination looses its illusory need to disappear...
When an illusory need is lost, ‘no-thing’ happened

:-)

[sahyo]

Only when fascination with this searching is over, the mirror itself will be seen, without any ‘one’ seeing it. The mirror, the Seeing, The Unchanging, cannot be seen by any one looking, that’s why only when the “one looking” is seen through, the Unchanging is there as something that never was missing


"without any ‘one’ seeing" will not seeing "The mirror, the Seeing, The Unchanging"

"something"?

[sahyo]

"The mirror, the Seeing, The Unchanging" only 'seeming'
if ocre thinkingsomeoneseeing

[Ocre]

I can’t make out what you are saying/asking here Asheera. :unsure:

I'll be gone for the weekend, read you later...

:D

[sahyo]

:D


ps:
wasn't
askinganswer
;)

[a random hack]

seems;

see mirror, see reflection, see self....

no mirror, no reflection, no self....

:)

[sahyo]

no mirror, no reflection, no self....


:)



no self, no reflection, no mirror....

[a random hack]

:o
<BOINGGGGGG!!>
:lol: :)

[sahyo]

:lol: :D hehe

[DavidS]

The 'notion' that any thang that is 'manifest' in the 'realm' of 'duality' is 'illusory' reflects a kind of misunderstanding if one image·ins it to be a completely 'illusory', I think.

What is 'illusory' is its (the thang's) 'separateness'. There is a 'connectedness' and thus a 'derivativeness' from and 'oneness' with All That Is which is 'masked', or 'camouflaged', by the thang's 'appearance'. The thang itself is 'really' there -- IOW, in my view, you as a 'uniquely' 'configured' 'observers' really ex·ist and are soul·fully 'alive' in an ongoing way, hack, asheera, Ocre, et al. -- it's just that that is not all, or the only thang, that 'you' are. The 'appearance' that that's the only thang that you are is what is 'illusory'.

If I seriously (i.e. genuinely) thought that I was just listening to and speaking with my 'self' of, worse, that I was just listening to and speaking with 'no one', I wouldn't bother speaking at all. That others here 'claim' to seriously (i.e. genuinely) think that strikes me as inauthentic bulldang in view of the fact that they continue to 'listen' and 'speak' here at all. 'Communication' (i.e., the transmission and reception of 'meanings') only makes 'functional' 'sense' if there are 'nodes' which transmit and receive 'meaning-bytes', as between neurons in the brain.

Of course, I recognize the possibility that some here may 'authentically' only be interested in self-'masturbation' or, worse (IMO), just wallowing in meaninglessness -- it's just that, the way my neurons are wired, I personally find such (image·ined) choices completely 'unbelievable'.
:)

[sahyo]

:)

The 'notion' that any thang that is 'manifest' in the 'realm' of 'duality' is 'illusory' reflects a kind of misunderstanding if one image·ins it to be a completely 'illusory', I think.

yes called david "think"ing

What is 'illusory' is its (the thang's) 'separateness'. There is a 'connectedness' and thus a 'derivativeness' from and 'oneness' with All That Is which is 'masked', or 'camouflaged', by the thang's 'appearance'. The thang itself is 'really' there-- IOW, in my view, you as a 'uniquely' 'configured' 'observers' really ex·ist and are soul·fully 'alive' in an ongoing way, hack, asheera, Ocre, et al. -- it's just that that is not all, or the only thang, that 'you' are. The 'appearance' that that's the only thang that you are is what is 'illusory'.

only if david "think"ing

If I seriously (i.e. genuinely) thought that I was just listening to and speaking with my 'self' of, worse, that I was just listening to and speaking with 'no one', I wouldn't bother speaking at all. That others here 'claim' to seriously (i.e. genuinely) think that strikes me as inauthentic bulldang in view of the fact that they continue to 'listen' and 'speak' here at all. 'Communication' (i.e., the transmission and reception of 'meanings') only makes 'functional' 'sense' if there are 'nodes' which transmit and receive 'meaning-bytes', as between neurons in the brain.

does need "think"ing"self"whichnot?

Of course, I recognize the possibility that some here may 'authentically' only be interested in self-'masturbation' or, worse (IMO), just wallowing in meaninglessness

"think"ingmastrabating"think"ing-"think"ingmeaning"meaninglessness"whichnot
like long discussing posts?

-- it's just that, the way my neurons are wired, I personally find such (image·ined) choices completely 'unbelievable'.

yet david still "think"ing"image·ined"ing

[DavidS]

Originally posted by asheera@Nov 15 2003, 04:51 PM
. . . yes called david "think"ing

. . . only if david "think"ing

. . . does need "think"ing"self"whichnot?

. . . "think"ingmeaning"meaninglessness"whichnot
like long discussing posts?

. .. yet david still "think"ing"image·ined"ing
Yes, (you're) bang on, asheera. I know what you 'point' to, except for the 'need' part - I do it because it strikes me as being 'good' personal and interpersonal ex·ercise, 'good' in the sense of being both fun (loving) and (creatively) functional. So, as you may image·in, it's likely not to stop flowing, at least not in the foreseeable future, even if you 'point' it out to me - but keep 'banging' away with the point if that's what my thinking-n-image·ining 'stimulates' you to do - hopefully, that'll eventually 'peak' into some kind of asheeragasmic satisfaction. ;)

Speaking of the 'flow' of 'thought', here's another quote:

To be able to truly see is a great gift.

When we fully visualize something, we see it from beginning to end.
We know what it will look like when it is done. That is what being
visionary is all about, being able to visualize completion,
accomplishment.

Meditation is the beginning of that journey.

It is the cleansing of the mind so that thought is not bent by
unconscious energies.

It is the allowing of a plan, a series of steps to reveal itself
within.

In meditation we learn to let distractions flow through us, empty
out. We learn to allow an idea to emerge from us without cutting it
off or distorting it. We allow the archetype to reveal itself.

The usual thinking patterns have us responding to, reacting to the
random things flow through our consciousness. Meditation teaches
us to allow each thought its own fulfillment.

Thoughtlessness is when we have an impulse and cannot foresee
where it leads. Meditation allows us to take the time to contemplate
fully, to allow a thought its full development.

In the settling of the soul is full visualization and realization of
who we are.

The ultimate is when we fully visualize ourselves, realize who we are.

========
Emanations
Copyright © 2003 by John MacEnulty
11/17/2003, St. Louis, MO

Please feel free to forward Emanations
to anyone you think will enjoy it or benefit from it.

Web site address:
http://Emanations.net/

[sahyo]

keep 'banging' away with the point if that's what my thinking-n-image·ining 'stimulates' you to do - hopefully, that'll eventually 'peak' into some kind of asheeragasmic satisfaction.*



"banging"?

"hopefully"asthough?



To be able to truly see is a great gift.

no

When we fully visualize something, we see it from beginning to end.We know what it will look like when it is done. That is what being visionary is all about, being able to visualize completion, accomplishment.

no

Meditation is the beginning of that journey.

meditation not 'about'....not about thinking"beginning"end"
....not about "visionary"

It is the cleansing of the mind so that thought is not bent by unconscious energies.

not 'about'....not about "cleansing of the mind"

It is the allowing of a plan, a series of steps to reveal itself within.

no

anentity? which "plan"s?

In meditation we learn to let distractions flow through us, empty out. We learn to allow an idea to emerge from us without cutting it off or distorting it. We allow the archetype to reveal itself.

no

The usual thinking patterns have us responding to, reacting to the random things flow through our consciousness. Meditation teaches us to allow each thought its own fulfillment.

no

Thoughtlessness is when we have an impulse and cannot foresee where it leads. Meditation allows us to take the time to contemplate fully, to allow a thought its full development.

not 'about'....not about "contemplate"

In the settling of the soul is full visualization and realization of who we are.

"settling"?....anentity? to settle?

The ultimate is when we fully visualize ourselves, realize who we are.

no



yip said "no" :D ;)

[sonrisa]

yip yip yippity yip yip

[sahyo]

:lol: :D

[sonrisa]

yup :P

[sahyo]

:P
:D

[sonrisa]

:D