deci belle

Yes, nestentrie~ I PM'd you, ok?❤❤

I want you to lose the passive aggression, dear. If you may not be up to speed with the content of this thread, just wait a little while until you have the means to comment effectively on topic. It's a matter of style beyond the literary sense. Please don't be in such a hurry to rack up posts commenting on that which is currently beyond your ability to do so. All it takes is openness, sincerity and time.❤ If you have any questions on the actual content of my threads, you may PM me, if that suits you. btw, I have worn out a few of these Taoist I Ching volumes too, (not to mention several others). If you are anything like me, it wasn't that much fun~ haha!! ed note: add nestentrie's experienced avatar and last line

Who was it who said, "Refer everything to the self."? The best teachers do not say a thing, ultimately. But one still must step over eternity for them, for they reside in oneself alone.❤ Bob said: There is no soul. Reality is unborn. There is no self. The unattributable is your identity even now. Boy said: "Effective" is in terms of using words to recognize a readiness in others. Someday, perhaps, you will be ready. ed note: add Boy's quote and fix typo in last line

Great crystalization, dawei!!❤ I did the same thing to books by underlining parts of series of protracted phrases in various passages (in the alchemical treatises mainly), to make up concentrated statements that crystalize the section for future reference. Do you mind, nestentrie?— it IS abstracted. It comes out this way on the spot. Please don't provide literary analysis second-guessing the contents of my threads. …if you are a publisher, you can have your people contact my people… otherwise, I'd like for you run along, for now at least …and I do want that to sound nice, ok!!❤

Chi Dragon said:

i sm00ches Vous!! haha!!❤❤ I added a further response to the PM's conversation: Thanks for your prompt reply. I just read it and my initial reaction is that I'm lacking some context that would be necessary for me to completely understand what you're saying. I'll ponder it further. Ya, since there is no context beyond one's personal application of seeing outside of the personal identity, it is impossible to discuss the subtle spiritual operation of enlightening being. When oneself sees reality, it is in having no ideas relative to the person seeing— just seeing what is, almost like you are already dead to the world, but not letting on (heehee!!). You really don't even have to know what that person (ego) would think. It becomes the freedom to know what is really happening, so you then know other as free as you are (but most likely free to be deluded in terms of actually having ideas (that you might very well deal with, however subtly *or not*). This is presence, where knowledge is immediate~ so, really, what's to know other than the situation, itself, on its terms— and dealing with its inherent potential? Its potential is just awareness itself. It is nonpsychological, and the nonpsychologicl is spiritual. ed note: add part below sun's sm00chies~ heehee!!❤

The relax part is crucial, BD, I agree!! I wanted to include a caution before, but let it go… any sustained pressure or focus of attention on any part of the body is extremely dangerous. I felt you had the right approach to avoid that kind of misuse of concentration, though!!❤

And who might you be? Wanna explain yourself, dear? ed note: shorten title

Ok, yes— as this would be arriving at the realization and admission of acknowledging the true state of being one's ignorance— if this is what works in terms of christian tradition (not sure)? Please clarify if necessary, gg❤ On the other hand I now see where this aspect of the teaching falls, so yes, I see where it is. Merciiiiiii❤❤

Oh!! it does still work. I'd just PM'd Chi to see if he could re-start this thread under another guise to circumvent Protector's issues. Perhaps Protector might want to start a thread about this issue in the mod section? So ya, personal cultivation would certainly be relevant in terms of looking at aspects of one's selfless nature. I'm not sure yet where this might go, but since selflessness is the underlying characteristic of the nature of perception, one doesn't cultivate selflessness, per se— but would necessarily mitigate the effects of habitual usage of consciousness by such cultivation techniques, sure. It might then be possible to arrive at freer associations made possible by the uncovering of hidden capacities of awareness as layers of habitual consciousness lose their tyrannical grip over other, intuitive, avenues of cognitive awareness. ed note: italicize part of 1st paragraph

Nice insights, BD! This is something that can reveal itself in types of meditation (not looking at externals with the eyes) where there is an effect kinda like going down a gear (melting out levels of habitual consciousness) each time it happens. Experiment with this, sometimes it can activate the whole governor channel (MCO). I experience this lying in bed (safer than driving) hahaha!!❤❤ Also, Don Juan Matus talked about using the peripheral vision just to free oneself from habitual mental and sensual perspectives (I do this if I have to see a scary movie~ heehee!!). A different kind of exercise, but a not totally unrelated one he mentioned is to key your vision to the sight of object's shadows instead of the customary emphasis on distinguishing high-key light-source-reflecting surfaces over the whole of your field of view. The point here is to jog the habitual workings of the conscious mentality from its conformity with the Tonal (the rational psychological aparatus). I'm glad you brought this up, BD!!❤

Selflessness is already true. It is not even a matter of religion, so let's dispense with that perspective and assume the perspective of the revealed. Your nature is selfless, and your function, should you discover it, is nothing less than selfless adaption to ordinary circumstances. Unless one is absolutely vulnerable, there is no entry into the inconceivable~ as even if one has penetrated the light oneself, unless one can act on that knowledge it is as if one had no knowledge.

Roger commented recently in a thread, that the ironic thing is that you become LESS “vulnerable” when you penetrate into the light, and I am hoping to delve into this place of a selfless, sincere, open vulnerability which allows one to enter into the heart of evolving situations simply because one has seen the potential for response, not for any purpose of conventional speculation— much less motivated by habitual patterns of contention based on ideas of one's comparative reifications of self and other. Certainly, in my experience, that nobody else feels less vulnerable when I act in terms of selfless adaption in response to events should be obvious. So I have found that when clamping and hooking people in situations by using insight into potential, people become verrry vulnerable, and that this then makes me vulnerable to further reactions following judgements, even sanctions~ as I often experience new arenas of influence inasmuch as situations themselves evolve through their changes following the incipience of the upwelling flow of the source of evolution. Even for those who take evolution for granted in terms of a passive/reactive relationship with karmic processes, it is because they do not see that the inherent potential actually shapes enlightening response— so it’s not that one seeks influence in new situations outside of currently evolving response to conventional affairs. Situations themselves transform seamlessly, it is sentient beings experiencing the changes as long as they do not have insight into freeing potential from its karmic matrix. Roger Daltrey, expresses this wonderfully in The Who’s Pete Townsend 1967 hit, I Can See for Miles, when he sings “…’cause there’s magic in my eyes.” So insight arises spontaneously, but unless one has solidified the unification of one’s potential in the ocean of the absolute, this arising of lucid insight is a haphazard event dependent on conditions. The lyrics go on to describe that someone is “…going to choke on it too”. This is describing being a one subject to change by virtue of not sporting magic eyes. I understand exactly what Roger (the TaoBum) has stated, but if it is a case of operating within one’s personal shiny bit of enlightenment, that just won’t do for the purpose of harmonizing one’s light by freely entering the world with hands open to discover one’s enlightening function within the fluid characteristics of karmic evolution in terms of the conditional mutual arising of host and guest. In my experience, the “irony” of less personal vulnerability in terms of enlightening activity in the midst of situations amounts to a type of time where conditions allow— make that require selfless audacity~ not that there won’t be opposing as well as sympathetic response mutually arising. It all sounds like a conventional consequence of action— to those who lack insight into selfless response unattached to outcomes. The fact is that enlightening response being effortless for those who see potential is due to spontaneity, not because one comes to know invulnerability by virtue of penetrating the light. The hard part is in its aftermath, when one needs withdraw within incipience itself, in order to nurture potential in concentration after sealing insight completely during the time dictated by the Yin Convergence portion of each created cycle. The vulnerability of selfless adaption to situations is absolutely vulnerable …ever heard of a guy named Jesus, hmmmmm? Sure, his passing through the situation was a transcendent affair~ but essentially no different than anyone who sees reality experiences endless transformations, albeit on a much less apocryphal level. I cannot pass up this opportunity to note how this example of the god-man (and who isn't?), whose so-called supreme sacrifice serves to illustrate the exact process that is the alchemical firing process described by the Taoist classics of immortalism where one enters the situation unassumingly honored (per the donkey), yet glowing with potential; does not avoid clashes with temporal authority of the Word; knows, a priori, the set-up; becomes subject to the impersonal political (yin convergence); experiences seemingly excruciating passages; exits glowing with transcendent potential. Here the cycle is unified by potential coming and going; yet it really doesn't go anywhere, because unrefined potential becomes the elixir of immortality by virtue of following the hermetically sealed process of adapting selflessly as pure vulnerability to the time-cycle has entered the light, as stated by Roger. All that remains for adepts is to wait for the ripening of the potential before withdrawing the fire. Unless one is absolutely vulnerable, there is no entry into the inconceivable~ as even if one has penetrated the light oneself, unless one can act on that knowledge, it is as if one had no knowledge …whereby the elixir goes stale after having gathered it. ed note: add "— make that require selfless audacity" in 8th paragraph; add "[time]-cycle has entered the light, as stated by Roger" in penultimate paragraph; "whereby the elixir goes stale after having gathered it" in last sentence

Dear Chi darling, fear is not a factor in the vulnerability of selflessness because our fears are based on the selfish perspective of dependence on outcomes. This may be what Roger was referring to when he said that when one penetrates the [selfless] light, one is ironically LESS vulnerable. Actually, vulnerability is the proof of open sincerity which is the prerequisite of calling alchemical sense back to essence by virtue the Center, represented by earth. Selfless vulnerability is another way of saying open sincerity. Furthermore, we don't discuss religion on my threads, ok? We talk about realizing the source of religion.❤ ed note: add second part of first sentence

In terms of exploration, which is probably the most delicate matter, I would say we recognize potential, because the word choose seems a bit strong— but in terms of desire, we do follow it, yes, without stepping over the line. Once we know, it is a matter of observation, as you say, and the disinterest in outcomes prevents bias and inclination from diminishing the power of impersonal adaption. I guess the distinction of what is let go is our speculative perspective— we let go of our desire for our desires, which guide us through the ground of the general situation. But desires don't necessarily pop-up so regularly. One has to be camped out in a situation for a while for things to develop. Just doing that much is practice because karma is a constant flow we must neutralize in ourselves in terms of the situation to maintain clarity, but practice makes perfect for when the biG FiSh arrive!! haha!!❤ In fact, the real reason for not acting to influence the evolution of general situations is that we don't know what is going to pop-up next. So by not acting compulsively as is the norm (in terms of acting on our ideas based on a speculative perspective), we come to find out what happened in increments. Of course, the inevitability factor must be considered in terms of what one's responsibility is in terms of potential. This is the bit of land one keeps in one's pocket until the situation is ripe. Often, desires just serve as an overall point of reference (for me). My inaction in regard to compulsion allows desires to shimmer and fade without my delving into "picking and choosing" in a flippant, fickle and inconsiderate way. ed note: add "but practice makes perfect for when the biG FiSh arrive!" at the end of 2nd paragraph

Is the dependent wretchedness of christians a beneficial developmental state in the sense of the teaching of Thomas, goatguy? Is realization for christians of Christ-like affinity in the Lord appear in Thomas' Gospel? Christians as a whole don't seem too keen on realizing any kind of affinity in the Lord. Perhaps I speak too soon? I love your posts, goatguy…❤

I wish somebody here would endeavor to see their original face for themselves so at least it would be clear (to them) that there is no such thing to debunk. It is possible to ascertain for oneself that one's own mind has no beginning, is selfless and therefore is not subject to nor has ever been the object of anything, much less a creator. Isn't off-topic a wonderful thing!!❤

Hi Brian❤ Well, that's kinda it, because (equanimity is the technical term) nonattachment has the effect of allowing us the full focus of our involvement in the situation (therefore vulnerability) yet simultaneously, in terms of the selfless aspect, facilitates full absorption of event-energies into our enlightening space without implying clinging or rejection (or the nullity implied by the conventional usage of the term "indifferent") because energy reverts to nonpsychological space. It is really a big part of what constitutes compassion in terms of there being nothing considered outside oneself. It's not that we choose or not to accept event energies, it is our own skill in subtle operation (due to clarity of self-refinement) that determines to what degree, or not, there is sticking in terms of event energies. Ultimately, it doesn't matter as we then store the experience as potential in silence void of intellectualism where it transforms naturally into elixir. The saying is that before emotion arises, there is balance; afterwards there is harmony. This is one's practical technique in terms of the firing process whereby we go through endless transformations. In the course of situations, personalistic judgements aren't activated because in our fleetingly continuous impersonal perspective comprising space, everything is contacted in innocence. Not only is nothing wrong, nothing is right, because your center suspends everything. Enlightening being is up to oneself alone. In this environment, everything is present. As the criticality of certain junctures evolve more or less temporarily, we watch creation pass us by without our having to go along with its circumstantial elements or assume their implications— unless we consciously in subtle terms assume their continuance for the time being~ namely to find out what happened in the end. It depends on the situation and inherent cycles of timing what we go along with, and when, what we let go, and what we retain. This is an overview of selfless response in the most simple terms. Worldlings have no say in whether they go along or not, while enlightening beings send it off in its time, which they alone are able to see.

mr Fan said: There isn't even a place for a creator in the case of the totality of reality being causeless.

One might ask, "So what?" It is very simple to address this valid question. When, and as long as we are turning the light around by following the light in reverse by enlightening activity, we are not going along with creation, that's all. In this respect, there is nothing else to do. But unless people have reached a level of refinement whereby they can abide in a state of serenity and not be seduced unawares from the centerpoint of the pivot of awareness that infuses one's open vulnerability with impersonal sincerity by the vagaries of cloying karmic evolution, they cannot sustain the purpose and development of enlightened qualities.

Ooops!! I forgot the most important part, Biri~ and that is that there is no creator. Since it is a fact that essential nature is itself uncreated, I propose that creators of any stripe cannot create the uncreated.

There is no sovereign god. The sovereign god concept is a construed deification of human egohood. Reality is a mystery which is possible to enter and function within by virtue of selfless awareness. Awareness is itself selfless. God is a demiurge employed by people.

Not you, not some other you There is no one. Not a thing On the cusp of going into action In perpetuity. When has this ever moved? When the Unborn Has become activated Just this is nonbeing. Emptiness is not void Awareness is complete Who knows before the first thought Peerless knowledge unknowing?

Not you, not some other you There is no one. Not a thing On the cusp of going into action In perpetuity. When has this ever moved? Though this thread was inspired by an issue pertaining to mystical experience and I started off this commentary on my initial response to that PM, the first two stanzas are being discussed last. Why? Whether or not the gradual is employed by those born knowing, the unity of before and after in terms of enlightening activity also works the same for those who must practice gradual self-refinement due to karmic obstructions. So once people discern the real immaterial intangible potential in ordinary affairs and begin authentic practice based on essence itself, gradual practice before and after the sudden is the same in that the course of freeing potential from the matrix of polluted self-reflective awareness transforms the organism, according to its predilection, from creation. This practice and its transformative results are one, even though it can be said to have differentiation in terms of before and after. Actually, before and after being one is one's authentic active presence outside of the two times whereby one adapts impersonally from within karmic evolution itself without attracting residual karmic influence. In the case of gradual practice in the aftermath of sudden realization, one's selfless adaption to ordinary affairs influences the course of evolution for those ready to evolve along with the reversal of the light in terms of habitual consciousness. Not you, not some other you, there is no one, is one's freedom to act selflessly in the midst of ordinary affairs unbeknownst to anyone according to the time. This is enlightening being. It is just the way it is and no one knows why. Though this statement could apply to sudden realization, the fact is, the power of the absolute is inherent in conditions. The real is found by virtue of the false. Enlightening being is a matter of knowing how to work with reality as is. It isn't difficult~ it's just selfless. It just makes me want to laugh! Not a thing On the cusp of going into action In perpetuity. When has this ever moved? When passion and essence fuse, the creative reverts to the source and all is as it is: as ungraspable as a mass of fire. Sinking into passions and clinging to the absolute are the two extremes. There is a perpetual instant residing in each of us having no beginning or end or inside or outside. If you can bring this up, the world has always been this ungraspable mass of fire. Plunge the ungraspable mass of fire into the ocean of realization. ed note: tweak spaces between text and commentary and fix last sentence

Emptiness is not void Awareness is complete Who knows before the first thought Peerless knowledge unknowing? Moving further into the unborn to its source in terms of real experience this stanza notes that there are no extraneous elements or symbols relative to anything, much less vestiges of the human mentality's inherited instinctive, cultural or or other psychologically grounded content: i.e., voices, pageantry or any derived atmosphere involving an identifiable self: oneself or another. Here, the person has been stripped away, revealing the original face, the essence of awareness, the true human with no status. There is only essential awareness seeing nonoriginated aware nature. Emptiness is not void. Awareness is complete. Immaterial, awareness has no inside or outside where not even nothing exists. Complete, the unity of uncreate space is the totality of Mind, empty yet not void. Before the first thought there is aware Mind, peerless knowledge unknowing. This is who. Who is not a person. This is our aware nature having no identity. This is where the term selflessness comes from. Selflessness has no attribute denoting a personal locus. Awareness is impersonal, hence our nature is selfless, impersonal, nonoriginated Unity. Knowledge unknowing is nonbeing being. Knowledge refers to the quality of being. Unknowing is its capacity as never having begun. This is the state of the absolute in perpetuity. Awake living awareness, miraculous and immaculate without peer. ed note: sweeten it up here and there