|
|
 20 Nov 2010 @ 18:40
“I can’t believe THAT!” said Alice.
“Can’t you?” said the Queen in a pitying tone. “Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.”
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said, “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why sometimes I believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” ~ Alice In Wonderland
I taught music class the other day and for my Kindergarten class (6-7 yrs old),
we learned a nursery rhyme of sorts. One line in the nursery rhyme was "The pig
flew up in the air." Every single time we sang that line, there was immense
laughter and carrying on. Some of them would jump out of their seats they were
so excited by the image.
But why? They felt liberated by the impossibility of the idea. They knew the
nature of a pig. They knew that pigs possessed the innate inability to fly.
So, imagining an impossible thing shot them straight out the top of the Tone
Scale. They exteriorized from mind!
The name of the game here would seem to be literality. And the literality has everything to do with other-determinism. With the advent of literalism, everything has been already created, and a human's only power resides in listlessly re-arranging objects, like dead trinkets on a dusty shelf.
Many children do not suffer from this limitation. If one watches them play, it becomes obvious that their games are not pure imagination, but their games also do not involve pure physicality. They are a beautiful and exhilarating combination of the two. They LINK their imagination to the the physical world. Both are real to them. Interestingly, it seems easier for them to as-is their games when they are finished. There's no mess of MEST to push aside when they are done. Game over, game disappears.
There is one short but powerful process, more like an assist, that aims to dismantle literality. "Pick an object in the room. Tell me something that object could be."
Or just practice this koan: pigs can fly.
Oh Lord, from the mouths of babes. More >
|
|
|
|
 11 Sep 2010 @ 17:48
Why do we identify like objects when we know that each one is not the other, and that each is unique in space, in time, in essence? Here, in what Ibn 'Arabi called the sensible realm, and others call the finite universe of limited quantities,each man is that man, and not others; men are not "men," envelopes are not "envelopes," thoughts are not "thoughts," salutations are not "salutations." These identifications are empty, meaningless for the sole purpose of navigating an entire realm that is just as entirely meaningless. But we do this, pretending that an envelope is Just like the lie that Lincoln perpetuated, that the states were created by the Union, while the truth was otherwise. They are not known, and we do not become intimately acquainted with them individually, unto themselves but rather as an instantiation of a meaningless category. These arbitrary groups have no fundamental existence. What is alive, and what is connected to Source, is 'that' thing or 'this' thing.
These meaningless groupings and identification happen after the fact, or posteriori, i.e. after the individual things have been born into the world. Archetypes, or templates of creation, are not posteriori--they are a priori. They are present before birth, and never after. They themselves do not exist but are dark and only become illuminated and thus born, when God breathes through them, shining His Light behind their skeletal structures. Then that archetype arrives here, as itself but also different, as an individual object, either as a mere object in someone's personal universe or an object in the universe we all can see.
These archetypes are perfect,--perfect images. What makes them perfect?...
(To be continued...) More >
|
|
|
|
 22 Jul 2010 @ 13:16
To take this or that turn, to form this relationship or that relationship, to thrust one's body toward the laboratory or the monastery...modifying all of that, are the machinations of the mind.
The mind itself does nothing. The mind is akin to the driver of a carriage. It is truly the horses that cover the distance. The driver can set direction and pace: to stop, to proceed, to turn left, to turn right. The mind--its ideas, conceptions, significances, associations, observations, lines of reasoning, computations--creates direction.
The mind receives information or signals from "out there"; think of the mind in that case as a camera that takes snapshots of the world "out there." From these snapshots, the mind commits its other functions, forms these snapshots into ideas, extrapolates, calculates, associates... But it all begins with snapshots of "out there." These snapshots function as an interface between a person and his or her reality. They are what passes from outside to inside.
It bears noting that a snapshot can never exhaust reality. Reality is much too broad, too deep for that. These snapshots are finite portayals of what is in its essence, infinite. The very word "perceive" means "through a filter." Some things come in, some things stay out.
Is the mind always and inevitably misleading then? By the same token, will the driver of a carriage always lead his passangers off of the edge of a cliff? Certainly not. Not if he is monitored and managed, scrutinized with an air of neutrality and clarity. Not if he is made to serve, rather than being made a master into which we put our most sincerest, and blindest faith.
These snapshots, or representations, or signals, are assumed to represent what is actually there, through passive reception. Gathering these impressions, we attempt to create a perfect reflection of what we see outside of ourselves. We attempt to craft a perfectly correlative model within our personal space of what is outside of our personal space. In short, we try to map the territory. We are the cartographers of no-man's land.
Yet, at some point, the mind no longer remains passive, it becomes active. No longer merely an instrument that receives signals of what's there, it decides what could ever be there. What one sees and does not see, becomes what one can ever see and cannot ever see.
Because from these snapshots, a person will form ideas about what to expect from reality. These ideas become fixed, or permanently held and consistently unchallenged. The person will cling to these fixed ideas about what is "out there."
This creates a feedback loop. A feedback loop is where the results of a process--that's the feedback--are fed back into the process whereby more results are gathered and fed back into the process. In our case, the mind draws in actualities. The contents of that reception, that is the feedback, the results of perception. Those signals are turned into fixed ideas about reality which are projected back upon reality, those projections are re-internalized, and so on.
This is what the Taoists called, "The mind becoming its own teacher." The mind first plays the role of the student, passively consuming information about reality. It then turns around and becomes the teacher of reality, telling itself what it can and cannot see. When the mind becomes both the student and the teacher of reality, much of reality can become...ignored.
Beyond missing out on much of what could truly be out there, there is another consequence that can devastate one's freedom and efficacy. The most dangerous of computations can arise from this error, when the mind becomes its own teacher. It is:
INABILITY = INCAPABILITY
What that means is that what you cannot do now, you can never do. There is another way to render this computation. It is:
WHAT IS NOT ACTUAL IS IMPOSSIBLE
What that means is that what a person has never done, or seen done, is impossible.
Now when applied to certain realms, this computation seems utterly crazy...and other realms, it seems to make perfect sense to people.
For instance, many people can drive a car. Not many people can drive an 18-wheeler. Many people have an inability to drive an 18-wheeler. Yet most of these people would never say that just because they have an inability to drive an 18-wheeler that that means they have an incapability to do so.
One difference apparently is that even if one cannot drive an 18-wheeler oneself, one sees others doing it all over the place. The notion that driving an 18-wheeler is impossible never becomes a fixed idea that people project upon reality. Seems rather silly actually...
In other realms, this computation makes perfect to people...or so it would seem. For instance, when it comes to viewing Time in its entirety, all at once, including all of one's past lives and future rebirths (asavakkhya); when it comes to reading others thoughts (Cetopariya); when it comes to communicating telepathically; when it comes to healing one's body without medication; when it comes to exteriorizing from space-time altogether--all of these are inabilities for most people. Yet, many would say that they are simply incapable of these certain...faculties. They might say that they are impossible. Why? What's the difference between operating an 18-wheeler and using these certain faculties?
First of all, again, people can see others driving 18-wheelers all around them--it is actual. Most people do not ever see others around them displaying these certain faculties of higher awareness--they are not actual. In accordance with that peculiar and inane computation, what is not actual is impossible, therefore they are impossible.
It's simple to understand. A little girl grows up never, ever seeing certain events transpire. Like, she probably never sees an ill person sit down with another person, and during the course of their conversation, the ill person becomes healed. In fact, that little girl grows up to see that the only thing "healing" people are chemicals. At some point, there are decisions made within her mind. This becomes a fixed and dearly held notion. That's the word belief means, "dearly held." She decides that the only means to heal one's body are chemicals.
These are the thought-patterns that people carry around with them, banishing so many possibilities from the realm of acceptable reality. For everyone, there is a line. A line at which inabilities become incapabilities. Yet under the light of honest inquiry, the computation proves to be pure nonsense. Simply because one does not ever observe others in their world committing this action or that action does not mean that that action is impossible.
The crux of the issue is perhaps that driving an 18-wheeler does not conflict with a person's worldview, a person's overriding idea of what shape the world should take. It does not conflict with many people's ideas about who they are, how their beingness as such automatically limits their perception. Those who would irrevocably identify themselves with their bodies may say that their identity as such renders certain abilities impossible; that the body is simply not capable of such awareness. Again, an inability is not an incapability. Merely because one is inside of a body and employs its limited channels for seeing and doing now, in one's current state, does not necessarily mean that that cannot change. It may very well be what-is, i.e. currently one is one's body. And if it is what-is, then it would detrimental and counter-productive to deny it. However, if it is what is, that in and of itself says nothing about what could be.
That truth alone is revolutionary. Actuality is not potentiality. "What is" and "what could be" should be held separate and distinct for they are separate and distinct. What mediates between the two is change. When they become collapsed in on one another, change gets crushed and change gets lost. Once that happens, one will have more and more of what one already has. What can one do to change any of the conditions of life is one's inabilities have been rendered into incapabilities?
Once one beholds and embraces the notion that change is real and at hand, that the conditions of now, be them any limitation or condition need not be inaccessible and never-ending, then one has truly opened one's mind. Once one fully realizes that inability does not equal incapability, that actual does not mean forever actual... Once one illuminates these blind and unconscious computations, these inane beliefs that work their silent doom in the background of our lives, then...change is real.
Then, it becomes not a question of action, of whether one can do or not do. Through the immense power of honest and unbiased inquiry, the clouds of doubt will dissipate revealing a new and exhilirating curiousity. The true seeker does not ask whether it can be done or not. The true seeker asks only , how can it be done. More >
|
|
|
|
 20 Jul 2010 @ 04:01
People seem to be so contaminated by their body and body systems that they insist truth can only arrive as MEST appearing inside the cone-shaped wedge of physical perception in front of their bodies. Having been contaminated so, they live out their existence in doubt and denial. Like peeling apart a sticker from its backing, one's powers of perception can be freed from these limitations. Looking at what what might create these limitations...
There are a number of computations.
The first is:
TRUTH = DENSITY.
In other words, for something to possess truth, or have a bearing upon the games of life, it must be dense, and dense enough for the human eye to perceive it. When fully examined, this computation will prove absurd. There are vectors hidden to the human eye that DIRECT, MOTIVATE and COMPEL game-play. Call them absolutes. Although these vectors cause dense objects to move here and there, these vectors themselves are not dense at all. Sit and watch a child play, or a musician finger his guitar, or lovers kiss--can you "see" the hidden vector directing them, carrying them along in its pursuit of fulfillment, like a puff of air directs a falling leaf to and fro?
TRUTH HAPPENS IN FRONT OF THE BODY.
Although this sounds absurd, this computation is ubiquitous. In front of the body exists a cone-shaped wedge of perception. Simply because the body gleans its information from this area does not mean that in this area all truth is found. In fact, absolutes are underneath physical life. Or, outside of physical life. While not IN the physical universe per se, they press their faces through the fabric of physical life, as if behind a sheet of linen. Can you "see" their faces in the mist?
Not to suggest the body is useless, it can be trained, its latent capabilities activated by certain techniques and practices. Only, its capabilities have been turned OFF by thousands of years of non-use. Its perceptual impotence has been reinforced by collective agreement regards its inability. Addiction to beauty and aesthetics (read: mystery) could be blamed for these inabilities. The overseers could be blamed as well (the elitist shadow governments of then and now).
What's fascinating though is that the body can be made to speak words beyond its own perception. The rub of it is that these words must be connected to true realities. Enter Word Clearing. As Chris Melchior says, effective word-clearing amounts to developing the ability to CREATE, or DUPLICATE, the reality behind the word. When that is achieved, it is safe to use the word. If that is not done, then talk has been veritably rendered cheap. The word may not be the thing, but it can point to it. Funny how lies can illuminate the path to truth. More >
|
|
|
|
 15 Dec 2009 @ 16:36
"Potential is the eternal element in all experience." --JG Bennett
The facts ma'am:
1.) One perceives actualities
2.) All actualities are potentialities; all potentialities are NOT actualities.
3.) All things potential and all things actual are both conditions that do NOT permit game play.
4.) Potentiality and possibility are NOT synonymous.
-- Possibility is defined by what is agreed-upon as allowable action, i.e what COULD be actualized.
-- Potentiality is defined by what possibilities CAN be actualized.
-- Example: Because one COULD write a novel, simply because that is allowable action, does not mean that one CAN write a novel. Most people do not honestly distinguish between possibility and potentiality because they cannot confront the discrepancy. Nor would they know how to reconcile such a discrepancy, i.e. enlarge their potential.
Outside of any system, all events are possible within that system. Limited possibility only arises WITHIN systems. To play strictly within a system is to not only agree with its laws but to agree that those laws are irrevocable, unalterable and untouchable.
More >
|
|
Page: 1 2 3 Older entries >> |
|
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
| 4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
| 11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
| 18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
| 25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
