Back on Takuin, the discussion continues about being. His points drew out some further thoughts, worthwhile as a post…

If the reader is ready, the message will be heard. If it reflects reality well, it will have layers of meaning that can be grasped from where they are.

Asking the speaker what they mean is a good habit, to not assume. It is indeed the art of listening. Better, the art of hearing. And that is the art of knowing. If we cannot ‘hear’, what is there we can learn?

Keep in mind that if everything exists within consciousness, that it must be causal. Intention is what creates any expression, anything we might experience. Without intention, there is nothing to experience. So if we don’t intend it we won’t experience it. But if we do intend it we will. Keep in mind that the ‘we’ here refers to the us, not the individual. The individual is an illusion. The ego mind creates stories, not experiences.

Your story is real if you perceive it to be. Perception is the feedback loop of intention, so if we perceive it, it is made real. But ‘real’ is relative. The only real that is absolute is without qualities so cannot be experienced. We can only be that. Thus anything we experience is a relative real. But in that moment, real.

It seems that my “problem” is the inability to project an image onto what is experienced. In other words, I cannot make up a story about what happens, as there is no point of reference.

Your ‘inability’ may simply be a missing clarity on what is taking place. You are projecting your experiences (consciously or not), then failing to project a story onto that projection.  This points to some clarity about the story process of ego. It tries to project onto the experience and you’re seeing through that. If you get that you are projecting it in the first place, but not the individual you but rather the deeper you, then you will begin to be able to shift what is being perceived. Much easier if you working causally rather than with the effects. Working to change what we perceive is working to change the feedback loop, not the source of the experience.  Or worse, editing our story about it. What gets in the way is the story we have about ‘how it is’, even if you think there is no story. Sounds like you are seeing though part of it.

In essence, everything we experience is a story. A dream you might also say. This dream has several levels – an individual dream (the most illusory), a group dream, a country dream, a world dream, a universe dream, and a dream of God, of the one. Remember, its all intended. In other words, its all made up. As i mentioned before, its made up so that the nothing can know itself. Without intention, all we have is restful alertness, without content. With intention, we can discover what was formerly just potential.

While the analogy is a little weak, its a bit like deep sleep. What can we know or discover in deep (unconscious) sleep? It is only in wakefulness that we can experience and thus learn.  (I qualified sleep as one can learn a great deal in conscious sleep, but thats another subject)


Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Really?

  1. I left a comment in our conversation on the blog, but didn’t want to copy and paste it over here. That would breach some sort of blogging etiquette, right? 🙂

    Anyway, all one is saying is, there is no I to refer to as events unfold. No self to interpret what is happening. I am not saying this is the way it should be, or that theoretically it is what could be happening. This is the life lived within this organism. It is not a story, because if it were, there would be a storyteller. But there isn’t.

    It is true that if there is a storyteller with an intention, then it is all made up. But does the nothing know itself, or is that just the story thought believes about what might be (about the nothing)?

    Thought cannot touch this nothing, as you put it, because it can only function within what it already knows. It can theorize and imagine beautifully, but that cannot help.

    At least not in the situation we are talking about here.

    Thanks for all your comments over at the blog. I appreciate it.

  2. Davidya says:

    Heck – I paste back and forth sometimes. (laughs) But I do edit for context. Really. 😉 And yes, I think we got some clarity on your blog. Seems it took a little back and forth to find an understanding. As you observed, the language is ill-suited and we each adapt our own way of expressing what we are. And that is the way of being.

    I also tend to use comments as a jumping off point and write to the larger audience, not always to the person there. Guess its kind of how I see the world. What individual? (laughs)

    Thank you for leading to new clarity and another facet of the gem.

  3. Davidya says:

    I could further add that you listen better than i 😉

  4. Pingback: The One Truth « In 2 Deep

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *