PDA

View Full Version : Very open question



Ghislain
01-31-2010, 09:28 AM
Tao – “The way that cannot be spoken of”.

http://genius.toucansurf.com/tao.jpg

Tao is properly understood as an experiential and evolving concept. What people perceive in Tao is
likely to be founded in their own character. Source: Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao)

There are many ancient texts and probably many many more interpretations of each of these.

What I like about the Tao is that it does not try to impose answers on one. It seems to have
only one message...we all walk our own individual path.

One might ask oneself,

“What do I hope to find?”, after asking this question you could ask,

“how will I know if/when I have found it”,
whatever it may be, and,

“What will I do with it if I find it?”.
One could now ask,

“How will that change my life?”, and,

“will that be for the better or worse?”

The reason I propose these questions is because I am wondering (right now) if we search for
something that is missing in ourselves.

Speaking for myself, I feel good when I am searching for answers...then I stop and
think...feeling good is a chemical reward secreted in my brain...it is not real...I could take a
pill for the same effect, or close to that effect.

Imagine your mind is opened to all the knowledge that exists...what would you do with it?
If you had all the riches you could want...what would you do with it?

I would still be me...Am I wise enough to handle that amount of knowledge?...and
where would the mystery be that makes each day so exciting.

If I had all the wealth I could dream of then nothing would be left to strive for...I
see boredom setting in. I could help others, but who, and should one intrude on another’s path?

Solomon Levi made a post about the size of the human brain.

originating thread
There are texts that state that there may have been alien intervention that brought this about, but I
recently saw a study which supposedly explains the correlation between the size of the neocortex to
group size and language in primates and humans.

This link (http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.dunbar.html) is not the study
I saw, but points to the same results.

I am not the world’s most social animal, I do like the company of others and good conversation
but I also like my alone time...I see nothing wrong with this but, being the seeker of truth that I am,
I have to ask the question, if brain size correlates to cohesion of a group and I spend a lot of my time
alone am I dysfunctional.:) Is this the reason I am searching...because I am missing a natural
ingredient – the need of the company of others.

It is very rare to find someone who will converse on subjects that are common on this forum,
therefore one tends to keep conversation with others on a light hearted level. Talking of the
weather (English past time ;)), current events, local gossip, which is fine for a while, but then I look at
them and wonder why they don’t want to know what it’s all about. When you pose this question
you get a funny look from most and then it is dismissed...maybe they are dysfunctional :)

I would like to hear others views on this.

Now you all know too much :mad:

Ghislain :D

solomon levi
02-24-2010, 12:32 AM
I'll have to re-read this when i have more time.
But I like what you said about not imposing answers.
It reminds me of J. Krishnamurti - he said something to the intent of finding
an answer or solution brings the mind back to knowledge/the known, and that
the purpose of his questions were to leave them unanswered, to bring the
mind into the unknown.

sol

Andro
02-24-2010, 12:46 AM
[...] the purpose of his questions were to leave them unanswered, to bring the mind into the unknown.

I disagree with Krishnamurti on this... I think the purpose of questions is to be answered, so that the answers/solutions can lead to the next questions/coagulations...
Without answers, the questions would starve to death and lose their ability to multiply and keep Creation going :)

Besides, I find his statement self-contradicting... It's the answers that dissolve and push the mind further into the unknown.


"finding an answer or solution brings the mind back to knowledge/the known"

That's flawed circular logic. If anything, Unknowns becoming Knowns bring the mind further, not back.
New Knowns/Answers/Solutions neccessitate paradigm shifts out of our oh-so-convenient comfort zones.

Leaving questions unanswered is in my opinion the hallmark of the 'Fear of Knowing' - being addicted to the search, but too afraid to actually find.
There's never a shortage of people in this mindframe...

Seekers get all the publicity, but finders are not as easy to find - and most likely for good reason :D

solomon levi
02-24-2010, 01:38 AM
That's not my experience.
I don't not-know because I'm afraid.
I not-know because I have observed what the mind is and know that I am not it.
The mind has to keep inventing questions/problems to survive or maintain
its appearance as real.

"Keep creation going" is the key phrase/difference.
Yes, the mind must keep creation going.
But without the mind (or attachment to it), there is no compulsion to do so.
The mind is not a true creator, but the gnostic Demiurge that imagines
itself to be god.

"...brings the mind further..."
there's no real difference between "back" and "further" when we're talking about mind.
The mind is the circular entity. There is no end to its creating. It will never say, "I'm satiated".
There will always be more, and that more will appear new, but essentially be the same act
repeated over and over and over....

Andro
02-24-2010, 01:55 AM
The mind has to keep inventing questions/problems to survive. "Keep creation going" is the key phrase/difference. Yes, the mind must keep creation going.

Absolutely :) But is there an alternative?


But without the mind (or attachment to it), there is no compulsion to do so.

I may well misunderstand you, but would you prefer Creation to stop?


The mind is not a true creator, but the gnostic Demiurge that imagines itself to be god.

I see the 'Creator' as the ultimate archetypal paradox of 'Nothing' secreting 'Something' to feed its infinite and insatiable Need.
I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that what you call 'mind' can be interpreted as a reflection of this primordial paradox.


There's no real difference between "back" and "further" when we're talking about mind. The mind is the circular entity.

I'd say spiral is more like it. Many minds are indeed circular, but never forever. All circular loops are eventually meant to be broken...


There is no end to its creating. It will never say, "I'm satiated".

Couldn't agree more :)


There will always be more, and that more will appear new, but essentially be the same act repeated over and over and over...

Periodic convergence points of complete deconstruction are built into the design to prevent exactly that, to the highest possible extent, limited only by the originating paradox.

Like the quote from the upcoming 'Inception' movie: "Never recreate from your memory".

I know from my far and beyond non-physical travels that there are streams in Creation which are looking for a way to cause the primordial paradox to 'suicide' itself.

A magnifficent entity I've once encountered communicated to me that for innumerable cycles it's been attempting to achieve the only thing that Creation is incapable of.

To die.

There was almost unbearable sadness emanating from this entity, and it took me a long time to recover from the encounter...

For me, right now, there is only the choiceless choice to 'keep on keeping on'. Until a 'better' paradox comes along...

theFool
02-24-2010, 03:41 PM
I've been reading recently a book from Stanislav Grof, a pioneer doctor who has studied extensively the use of LSD in psychiatry. His patients-subjects, amongst other experiences, experience also parts of the Creation. They refer to the Creator as a being of extreme solitude who creates and destroys constantly worlds in order to avoid the unbearable monotony. Playfulness and humor seem also to be parts of the Creator.

This experiental description of those 'psychonauts' seems to be very close to the gnostic myth of the Demiurg. I wonder and I want to ask, especially to members who have first hand experience, if this Demiurg as portrayed above, is the creator of our Universe or does he rule a lesser creation (e.g. like our solar system)?

If this kind of sick being is ruling the whole Creation, that would be scary :eek:, lol

Andro
02-24-2010, 07:09 PM
Creates and destroys constantly worlds in order to avoid the unbearable monotony.
Playfulness and humor seem also to be parts of the Creator.

Very much so, indeed... Watch the movie "The Nines".


Demiurg as portrayed above, is the creator of our Universe or does he rule a lesser creation (e.g. like our solar system)?

The 'Origin' of Creation is the Something/Nothing paradox I've mentioned above. It's not an entity per se.

Its Mother is Nothing, its Father is Something.
The dance between the two is the Mercury that is and drives Creation and from which all Awareness (experienced and percieved) is imagined and formed by adaptation.
All entities are Mercury, congealed to various degrees of fixity.

Within this Mercurial flow between Something and Nothing, there are Creation Games and the Players who play them.
There are also the Game Creators/Designers whom we mistakenly percieve as 'god'/'gods'.
They're Mercurial entities just like us, only more experienced and most likely graduates of a Game or two themselves.

The Game Designers do not actively 'rule' their Creations, they merely set the stage and the ground rules that each player must accept upon entering, and they may also make occasional adjustments to keep things in balance. Most Game Designers also like to sometimes actively 'incarnate'/participate in the Games they've created (with certain added "benefits"), so they can enjoy their Creations more directly and make the occasional adjustmens from within (when neccessary). They have no need to be worshipped or 'believed in', or any other form of religious nonsense for that matter.


If this kind of sick being is ruling the whole Creation, that would be scary :eek:, lol

Some Games are cartoonish, some are more 'Pleasantville' and some may be experienced as 'sick' or 'scary', but this is only from the limited perspectives of the fully immersed Players. They're only Games. Nothing more. We'll all meet and have a few good laughs when the Game is over :)

theFool
02-24-2010, 08:39 PM
Androgynous, thank you for your detailed explanations. I think I have alot of things to experience yet till I understand exactly what you mean (especially about the 'Origin' of Creation). The closest thing to the Creation I can imagine is lucid dreaming. The dreamer sets up the scenery, observes and occasionally participates. Wouldn't be surprised if 'gods' act like this.


We'll all meet and have a few good laughs when the Game is over
I see, just like waking up from a dream I guess ;)

horticult
02-24-2010, 10:30 PM
AC: The Smoking Dog.

solomon levi
02-26-2010, 07:40 PM
Absolutely :) But is there an alternative?...

Yes. It is possible for the mind to be quiet and observe an objective reality
that it does not interfere with. Gurdjieff and Castaneda speak of this - if you've
read them, and then numerous authors on non-duality.




I may well misunderstand you, but would you prefer Creation to stop?...

Just the mind. The mind should be an option, not a constant default.
Creation has already happened by the Subject. What we call personal or global
evolution may be what appears as discvovering fragments of the One Creation
over time instead of seeing the All.
I am an object, but I call myself "I" as if I am the subject. We are objects of the
One Subject. To see the One's creation is enlightenment. To create over what
the One has already done may be an offense that denies us Nirvana/Enlightenment/Heaven.

I see that we as "creators" can only be a good thing if balanced by an ability to
see ourselves as objects and to see the One creation and then to create relative to that, if one is still compelled to create.

I haven't explored the subject fully, so I don't have all the answers. But to be
addicted to creating, to not be able to stop, is not a good thing from my experience.




I see the 'Creator' as the ultimate archetypal paradox of 'Nothing' secreting 'Something' to feed its infinite and insatiable Need.
I believe (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that what you call 'mind' can be interpreted as a reflection of this primordial paradox....

Yes. I think we are in agreement with that. But doesn't the One have periods of
sleep and awake, non-creation and creation? Are we not right now in a period
where the One is manifest? Will there necessarily follow a period of unmanifestation?

So if we are made "in the image of God", then we must also be able to unmanifest
and not be constant addicted creators. We should be able to be objects, instruments
of the One, and let "Thy will be done". Perhaps not always, but at
least be able to do it for comparison. I'm not saying that is the ideal state. I'm just
saying if we can't do it, we're probably in trouble.




I'd say spiral is more like it. Many minds are indeed circular, but never forever. All circular loops are eventually meant to be broken... ...

Agreed! But back to our earlier posts, it is the mind that is fearful, and the
mind that finds security in answers instead of letting things be unanswered.
The mind is always accumulating knowledge, but we must remember to allow
the unknown, the mystery, or life becomes very boring and predictable and circular.




For me, right now, there is only the choiceless choice to 'keep on keeping on'. Until a 'better' paradox comes along...

I wouldn't be surprised if you already practice the alternative in there somewhere. :)

Andro
02-26-2010, 10:58 PM
It is possible for the mind to be quiet and observe an objective reality that it does not interfere with.

Absolutely. I am however, in a slightly different place that calls at times for escapades of focused interference. :cool:


The mind should be an option, not a constant default. Creation has already happened by the Subject. What we call personal or global evolution may be what appears as discovering fragments of the One Creation over time instead of seeing the All. I am an object, but I call myself "I" as if I am the subject. We are objects of the One Subject.

Language is limited for this. Creation has already happened potentially, but its infinite fragments are discovered by periodically tapping into this potential and manifesting it experientially. We are both Subject and Object, but we perceive ourselves as one or the other (and sometimes both) depending on where our focus resides on the Caduceus.


To see the One's creation is enlightenment.

We can only feel the potential. To see the actual Creation, we must tap into the potential, make it manifest and then dive in :)


To create over what the One has already done may be an offense that denies us Nirvana/Enlightenment/Heaven.

Nothing is 'already done' until our focus zooms in on our own manifestation of it. Outside this focus, it's only infinite potential - and it comes Undone.


I see that we as "creators" can only be a good thing if balanced by an ability to see ourselves as objects and to see the One creation and then to create relative to that, if one is still compelled to create.

Sort of yes :)

If you encounter (or design) a cool Game, you'll probably wish to play it.


I haven't explored the subject fully, so I don't have all the answers.

:D

When Neo asks how much the Oracle knows, Morpheus answers: "She would say she knows enough".


But to be addicted to creating, to not be able to stop, is not a good thing from my experience.

The mere fact of observing, even with 'no mind' or by 'stopping' - is also an act of Creation.
It's about Feeding the Need, no matter what/if we 'do' or 'don't', because if you understand the Paradox of Origin, you'll see there's no big difference between the two...

It may be helpful to consider the 'observing'/'no mind' state as frictionless/superconductive Creation, as opposed to 'mindful' and 'immersed' creation which is subject to much friction and interference.


Doesn't the One have periods of sleep and awake, non-creation and creation? Are we not right now in a period where the One is manifest? Will there necessarily follow a period of unmanifestation?

That's highly simplified, but yes. And it's not the 'One' anymore than it is the 'None'. The 'In-Between' is more like it :)
What you call a 'Period of Unmanifestation' is occuring at the intersection points of the Mercurial Caduceus.

These are the only points where time and space are completely irrelevant, and it's at these points where new Creations are being dreamt up out of the Infinite Potential, to become manifest Creations upon leaving the Periods of Unmanifestation and diving back in...


So if we are made "in the image of God", then we must also be able to unmanifest and not be constant addicted creators. We should be able to be objects, instruments of the One, and let "Thy will be done". Perhaps not always, but at least be able to do it for comparison. I'm not saying that is the ideal state. I'm just saying if we can't do it, we're probably in trouble.

'God' is not an entity and it shouldn't be refered to as 'thy/thou', but rather the 'Paradox of Origin'.
We are the image of this paradox just as we are the resulting flow emerging from it.
And it's rather 'My (higher) Will' than it is 'Thy Will'... Even though they're ultimately the same...

'Thy Will' is a surrogate term we've invented out of fear of surrendering to our Own Will, or even better said, Need.

Allowing our Will to surrender to our Need... Now THAT's choiceless freedom :)
And yes, we DO fluctuate... hence the shifts in our perception...


It is the mind that is fearful, and the mind that finds security in answers instead of letting things be unanswered. The mind is always accumulating knowledge, but we must remember to allow the unknown, the mystery, or life becomes very boring and predictable and circular.

Answers and Questions are reflections of dissolving an coagulating.
All coagulated questions must be answered/solved (dissolved) and re-coagulated into new questions.
They complement eachother.

It's easy to discuss these things hypothetically... But when there's real Need/Neccessity, we will be looking for answers.

Let's take pain, for example. Any kind of pain - physical, emotional or even boredom. (Toothache is a wonderful example :))

When we feel pain, we are choiceless. We need it to stop.

We may attempt to stop the pain by medicines, distractions or denial - or we may enter the 'no-mind' observing mode and let the pain pass through us until it's gone or integrated.

Either way, there is a definite neccessity for a solution, and we have no choice but doing what it takes.

There is a cure for every pain just as there is a down for every high. At the Caducean intersecting points, pain and extacy are one, but even this condition is designed to periodically dissolve - because 'good' is the worst enemy of 'better', and in order to manifest the 'better', we need to dissolve the 'good'. A.K.A. 'Multiplication'.

I can see how remaining in a coagulated state of questioning may appear as heaven/enlightenment/nirvana.
I would compare this approach to seeing the Philosopher's Stone as an end in itself, and I don't subscribe to that, because THAT would be boring.

The closer you are to having all the answers/Knowns that any particular Creation/Game has to offer (having cracked the programmer's codes, so to speak), the more you are driven by the Question "What's next?"

I'm not interested in accumulating 'knowledge'. I am interested in Knowing. There IS a difference.
Knowledge (by the mind) requires time&space-locked 'storage', whereas Knowing (by the Mercurial Spirit) doesn't.

If the 'answers' you are refering to are 'knowledge' and if the Unknown you're refering to relates to Un-Learning - then I agree with you. But 'Knowing' is different.
'Knowledge' requires effort and learning. 'Knowing' is a result of Un-Learning, and eventually happens quite effortlessly.


I wouldn't be surprised if you already practice the alternative in there somewhere.

:D :D :D
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _

PS: Needless to say (but I'm saying it anyway) that all my statements above are from my own perspective and are definitely not presented as absolute truth - but addidng IME to every other phrase would badly clutter up the text...

solomon levi
03-17-2010, 06:31 PM
Beloved Androgynus,

I'll keep reading your threads on this to find out where you're coming from.
Communication is an art, and I'd like to make sure I hear you before responding.
It's too bad we can't have this conversation face-to-face.


I think for me, the whole thing hinges on the "knower", the identity, the object
by which we perceive. I'm reminding myself that there are no objects - only relationships.
For example, the tree that I can know varies based on the tool which
I perceive it with - eyes, ears, touch, mind... or I can become the tree through
shamanic dance, or see it energetically, its "aura", or look at it under a microscope...
Depending on my mood the tree may appear different, or if I ingest certain chemicals
the tree appears different...

So the tree, independant of the observer, is unknown. I can only know the relationship
between observer, observed and observation.

You mentioned pain. Pain doesn't always have to be stopped. It's really only when
we identify it as pain that we decide it must be stopped. But all that brings about the
knower. What if we don't know? What if it's not pain or pleasure, but just energy?
When i'm present experiencing energy, there's no idea in my mind that i am
capable of stopping it or prolonging it. It's just what's happening now. I am not there,
separately, to do something about it. I am the energy. There isn't anything else.
The comparative/separative mind must be present to recall a time when this energy
wasn't present and to desire that.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I understand what's normal, our usual behavior.
I just have to keep pointing out this other, no matter how impractical it may seem.

To me, it's the reverse - even though I fall into the "normal" behavior of separation
almost all of the time. The fact that we talk to ourselves should be a flag.
Very rarely does one ask, "Who am I talking to? And who is listening? Why do i
call both the talker and the listener 'myself'? Are there two of me?"
"I am talking to myself" Who is 'I' and who is 'myself'? They are not the same if you look.
But the identity doesn't want us to see that. Like what Gurdjieff called "buffers".

This is common sense, which isn't really common. This is self-evident, which doesn't
appear to be very self-evident to most people. Most of the time we're sleeping and/
or hypnotised by the mind. What i have called the 'addiction to creating' is a
reaction, not a conscious choice. Most people don't realise there is an option - to stop.
Stopping isn't a goal in itself. It's just a new place to perceive from. A whole new world -
what Castaneda called 'the second attention'.


Fraternally,
solomon

Andro
03-17-2010, 07:44 PM
I'll keep reading your threads on this to find out where you're coming from.
Communication is an art, and I'd like to make sure I hear you before responding.
It's too bad we can't have this conversation face-to-face.

I as well would prefer a more direct means of communication, especially if you truly wish to know more about where I'm coming from :)
Besides, communication on these topics is severely limited by language, and even further limited by typing over the Internet.
The best thing next to meeting in person (which I truly hope will happen some day) would be to talk on skype.
It has great audio and video features, you know...

I will only reply here to the Alpha and Omega of your post :)

Regarding the In-Between, you're most welcome to skype me when ready.


Beloved Androgynus,

Beloved Solomon,


Fraternally,
solomon

Fraternally,
Androgynus.