What is magic? How does magic work?

Todd · May 27, 2011

You're not contradicting what I am saying, but you seem to think you do. Let me correct a few things you say.

First, you make a clear distinction between beliefs and what lies under the beliefs on a deeper level of the psyche. I don't make such a distinction. So right then and there I have one less polarizing and bifurcating line running through my psyche than do you.

Second, yes, ultimately everything is indeed coherent. I know this. My entire method as I present it here is aimed at allowing people to feel it and to make use of it in day to day life.

...

What I explain here can make people's lives better. What you explain can help too, but it won't help as much, because you're basically presenting the mind as two realms which should not be reconciled against each other. In the superficial realm there are contradictions and in the ultimate or deep realm, there are no contradictions, and you don't need to do any work. Just relax, everything is fine as is.

I do not make a clear distinction between beliefs and that which is more fundamental than beliefs. More fundamental does not mean separate or different from. A simple example of this, which may seem provocative to you, is the theory of fundamental particles. In the theory, all of matter is made up of these particles, so although these particles are more fundamental than any given thing, no thing is actually other than the particles. It is the same sort of relationship between the more fundamental level which I am referring to and beliefs. It is also the same sort of relationship between this more fundamental level and the psyche. It is not a deeper level of the psyche. The psyche is made up of it, through and through.

I am glad that we have gotten to the purpose of this discussion:

I am also presenting a method, but it is not as you think it is. I do not know if it is better or not, but I want to share my sense of a mechanism that it seems that you do not see. The mechanism relates to how we maintain beliefs that are not conducive to happiness and well being, and are not in accord with truth, especially given that they require enormous amounts of energy to maintain, and they disappear the second that we cease to invigorate them (very astute of you to notice).

This is actually incredibly difficult to conceive of, let alone convey in words.

The mind is always looking for an advantage. Thats what is built for, in many ways. It does its job well. Whatever feels good, or gets the desired result, it tries to remember and to repeat. The same goes for negative experiences, except that it remembers and tries not to repeat.

The difficult part to conceive of is that this movement goes nowhere. There is nothing that the mind can achieve that will satisfy it for long. It tries all avenues, including giving up trying, which you rightly point out is just more trying. Once this is seen, that there really is no way out, in the mind, then there can be a variety of responses. One response is to indulge the mind. If there is a desire in the mind, then we explore it, externally or internally. If there is a thought, then we investigate it. Is it true? Is there a better thought? A more satisfying thought? When others suffer, we think that it is their thoughts which make them suffer and we hope to give them tools to help them to let go of the painful thoughts and to come up with some better thoughts.

All of that is well and good. It is kind've like redecorating one's prison cell. It may even lead to the prison cell developing some holes, or even beginning to look like a palace.

Another response is to recognize something prior to thoughts, something more primary, which is not separate from thoughts, but is never caught in thoughts. Thoughts are always an expression of it.

Now here is the key point: that which is prior to thoughts is the only thing that can see thoughts clearly. It is the only thing that has enough perspective to transform thoughts. Thoughts are not actually difficult to transform. They transform of themselves, completely naturally and without effort as soon as one sees them clearly. There are obstacles to seeing clearly, but those obstacles are not actually inherent. They are not objects that need to be handled, or moved. They are something that we are doing. They are what we are invigorating with our life force. They are just like beliefs. In fact, I can't really see a difference between these obstacles and beliefs. They both are partiality to a particular point of view, which must be maintained in order to survive.

Now who would consciously expend great energy to maintain something which they knew could only cause them pain? Nobody, that I know (though some people sure seem like they do). So the reason people continue to expend such energy to maintain these beliefs is that they don't see the effects of these beliefs clearly enough. And how does one see more clearly?

One method, which is quite valuable, and which I appreciate you advocating for, is to examine one's beliefs.

Another method is to stop messing around with the mind so much, since the mind is constantly generating partial views. It constantly generates beliefs. As soon as we see through one belief, another pops up. As soon as we see that effort is not actually helping, we believe that non-effort is the way to salvation. If one only sees the mind, then letting go of beliefs doesn't seem like much of an option. But if there is any recognition of existence prior to thought, then one can thoroughly familiarize oneself with that existence. One returns one's energy to the only thing which can truly see thought, and hence allow it its natural function. This is what allows transformation.

The tricky part here is that often it is the mind that tries to do this, and the mind can't do this. The mind creates a division between the mind and that which sees mind, and then it tries to give its energy to that which sees mind, or at least it tries to stop doing the things it has always done. What mind is doing was never the problem. The shift of perspective doesn't have anything to do with the mind, though the mind cannot help but reflect it. The best the mind can do is to open up to the possibility that something else can do the heavy lifting.

Now I don't know if this is what you already know, and a part of something else doing the heavy lifting is your mind doing what it does the way that it does. But consider that something else doing the heavy lifting is also me writing this to you.

Heavy lifting is a misleading term, but from the mind's perspective it is appropriate. The only reason it is better to let something else do the heavy lifting, is that there is no heavy lifting to it.

Thank you for sharing your experience with lucid dreaming with me. I appreciate that. I sounds like you are learning your lessons.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Todd

goldisheavy · May 27, 2011

I do not make a clear distinction between beliefs and that which is more fundamental than beliefs. More fundamental does not mean separate or different from. A simple example of this, which may seem provocative to you, is the theory of fundamental particles. In the theory, all of matter is made up of these particles, so although these particles are more fundamental than any given thing, no thing is actually other than the particles. It is the same sort of relationship between the more fundamental level which I am referring to and beliefs. It is also the same sort of relationship between this more fundamental level and the psyche. It is not a deeper level of the psyche. The psyche is made up of it, through and through.

I am glad that we have gotten to the purpose of this discussion:

I am also presenting a method, but it is not as you think it is.

I've read your entire post before responding, so actually what you describe is what I expected you to describe. I'm only surprised that you seem to be able to give a more nuanced description than I have anticipated, but the direction you are going is exactly what I expected from someone like you. As you can imagine, this isn't the first time I hear your approach and your (somewhat mistaken) way of narrating the issues.

The mistake in your approach, as I see it, arises from your narrative. Essentially it leads to a kind of passivity and victimization, whereas my approach is engaged at the beginning and relaxed at the end without ever dipping into victimization or passivity. Relaxation as I speak of it is something intentional. It is active. It's not like giving up. It is a doing of sorts. It's not an expression of hopelessness, but an expression of power and creativity.

I do not know if it is better or not, but I want to share my sense of a mechanism that it seems that you do not see. The mechanism relates to how we maintain beliefs that are not conducive to happiness and well being, and are not in accord with truth, especially given that they require enormous amounts of energy to maintain, and they disappear the second that we cease to invigorate them (very astute of you to notice).

First, it's not something I would describe as a mechanism. The fact that you choose this word is a tell tale sign in and of itself. I see the process as a living process. It's alive. Fully. It's not mechanical. It's intentional and in some strange ways intelligent. It is not mechanical and that's why mechanical approaches result in failure in the long term.

Second, all beliefs reduce their strength when we cease to invigorate them. However, because I've actually studied my beliefs, I have a better understanding of this than you do. You seem to think all beliefs are the same and there is no need to pay any attention to them individually. You seem to think all beliefs are like grass that grows on top of the non-belief earth deep in the psyche. Well, it's nothing like that.

Beliefs are more like networks. They are not like grass at all. They are interconnected and they are arranged in layers. Deeper beliefs receive a much fuller measure of our intent than do the more superficial beliefs. So for example, the blood vessels coming in and out of the heart carry more blood and faster. They are crucial. So if the main blood vessel near the heart is blocked, death is very likely. On the other hand, if some tiny capillary in your pinky finger is blocked, death is highly unlikely.

Now, the blood mostly works in harmonious way. Beliefs do not. Beliefs can and often do contradict each other. Some beliefs are spurious. Other beliefs are connected in a network in such a way that is disconnected from the rest of the network. In other words, there are compartmentalized islands which may have no connection to other islands, or weak connections and so on. And all these beliefs are not necessarily playing for the same team so to speak. Some of them are actively working to stop you from having any kind of fun in life.

Simply relaxing in the face of this is not going to solve the problem. If it could, then all the very laid back individuals would be Buddhas. But they are not. So obviously something else is going on. More often than not relaxation is simply ignorance and mindlessness. It's not necessarily something that's illuminating. But examining one's own beliefs is guaranteed to be illuminating, if a slow process. I personally guarantee it.

This is actually incredibly difficult to conceive of, let alone convey in words.

The mind is always looking for an advantage.

That's a fundamentally wrong assumption. The mind is always looking for a fun adventure. Always. It's not always looking for an advantage. The neurotic level of the mind is always looking for an advantage, yes. But even the most neurotic person has regions of the mind that aren't affected by the neurosis. Overall it's wrong to saddle the mind with such a negative term, because the mind is your best and only friend. If you make your friend into an enemy, you've lost the game before you even begin playing.

Thats what is built for, in many ways. It does its job well.

Wrong. The mind is piss poor at figuring out what is truly advantageous because it was never built for that. The mind was built for playing games and for having fun adventures. That's what the mind excels at. Seeking an advantage is more like a disease and the mind is never good at being diseased. It sucks at it. It's obvious. People who constantly seek an advantage are not happy. Why not? Because the mind sucks at it. Because always looking for an advantage leads to a feeling of insecurity, of neurosis, of mistrust and so on. You can't ever relax in that frame of mind. Of course anyone who is even marginally intelligent would realize that the reason it's so damn hard to seek an advantage is because the mind was never built for it. It's damn unnatural.

Whatever feels good, or gets the desired result, it tries to remember and to repeat.

Until it gets satisfied.

The same goes for negative experiences, except that it remembers and tries not to repeat.

The difficult part to conceive of is that this movement goes nowhere.

Nor should it. It's not our goal to get somewhere, you see? If you think you need to arrive somewhere, then you are a diseased neurotic who can't enjoy life. You are fine wherever you are. You don't need to arrive somewhere. For example, "unbinding" is not a someplace where you need to arrive ASAP. It's not like that at all.

There is nothing that the mind can achieve that will satisfy it for long.

That's the source of never-ending bliss. It's not a source of troubles unless you are diseased in some way.

It tries all avenues, including giving up trying, which you rightly point out is just more trying. Once this is seen, that there really is no way out, in the mind, then there can be a variety of responses.

The mind is capable of limitless experiences. Limitless. It's hard to understand what that word means. But basically it means there is always a way out. In fact, if you can conceive of an "out" as a concept, that's mind. The mind is the cause of both problems, and of the solutions. The mind is alive. It's not something mechanical that you manipulate from outside the mind.

One response is to indulge the mind.

No, it's not the mind we indulge. It's our desires. There is a difference. The mind is on the whole indifferent to pleasure and pain. It's alive but it's very tolerant and very accommodating. Your mind can accommodate limitless pain, which you likely wouldn't describe as indulgent, but all that is just fine with the mind you see. So it's not the mind that you indulge.

If there is a desire in the mind, then we explore it, externally or internally. If there is a thought, then we investigate it. Is it true? Is there a better thought? A more satisfying thought?

Thoughts are a waste of time. Beliefs are what really matter. Thoughts come and go every second. Beliefs don't. Most people die with the same fundamental beliefs that they are born with. What does this tell you about the rate of change?

That doesn't mean beliefs cannot change. It means most people don't bother trying for two reasons:

1. They are satisfied as-is with life.

2. They've heard erroneous spiritual narratives like the one you are conveying now, and they are not critical, but just mindlessly accept them.

When others suffer, we think that it is their thoughts which make them suffer and we hope to give them tools to help them to let go of the painful thoughts and to come up with some better thoughts.

Beliefs, not thoughts.

All of that is well and good. It is kind've like redecorating one's prison cell. It may even lead to the prison cell developing some holes, or even beginning to look like a palace.

Not at all. Think of the mind as an endless expanse. When you are redecorating your mind, you're changing this endless expanse. Your mind is not something small.

Look, most people erroneously believe that mind is something that sits somewhere in the skull. That's false. It's an erroneous belief. This false belief gives the impression that the mind is a prison. In reality the mind is freedom. It is not a prison. It is not in your skull at all. But to see that you can't just relax. If you just relax you'll just be lazy like all the other fools. You really have to combine some healthy measure of relaxation with some healthy measure of contemplation for best results.

Another response is to recognize something prior to thoughts, something more primary, which is not separate from thoughts, but is never caught in thoughts. Thoughts are always an expression of it.

Yes, that something is you and it's also called mind. You = mind. You are alive. Mind is alive. You are space. Mind is space. Mind is the real you. Mind is not how you believe it to be. Mind is the "place" where the beliefs happen, but mind itself is not its beliefs! Mind is also the place where conditioned (upon beliefs) experiences happen. But mind is not its experiences.

Now here is the key point: that which is prior to thoughts is the only thing that can see thoughts clearly.

Yes. That's mind! You got it. You have to use your mind to see your beliefs clearly. It would help if you challenged your false beliefs about the mind however. The mind is limited by its own ideas about itself.

It is the only thing that has enough perspective to transform thoughts. Thoughts are not actually difficult to transform.

Actually it depends. Thoughts are joke easy to transform because thoughts come and go. Beliefs are harder. Core beliefs are the types of beliefs we are born with, and most often, we die believing the same things we were born believing. So obviously those types of beliefs are damn hard to change. Hence some traditions talking about the 3 great aeons required for enlightenment.

They transform of themselves, completely naturally and without effort as soon as one sees them clearly.

False. They don't do any such thing unless by transformation you mean they remain roughly the same as before. The transformation you are talking about actually only happens in one very specific case. The person must be prepared for that case and must have a very special kind of belief. That person is someone like me. I would be a good candidate for that happening. But that's because I've already examined many of my beliefs very deeply and experimented as well. This method is emphatically not appropriate for everyone. It's only appropriate for people who are ready to give up the whole universe, which is almost no one. Not even me. People who don't want to play anymore. Again, that's not me and mostly not anyone. Many of these people are simply sick people because the reason they don't want to play is because they got hurt while playing and developed an adverse reaction to playing by playing inappropriately.

There are obstacles to seeing clearly, but those obstacles are not actually inherent. They are not objects that need to be handled, or moved. They are something that we are doing. They are what we are invigorating with our life force. They are just like beliefs. In fact, I can't really see a difference between these obstacles and beliefs. They both are partiality to a particular point of view, which must be maintained in order to survive.

Now who would consciously expend great energy to maintain something which they knew could only cause them pain?

You see, many our beliefs are helpful ones. Even the most deluded person has at least a dozen of good and helpful beliefs that cure suffering.

It's very important to recognize this. If you think all beliefs are an illness, that's wrong. Also, that's the dogma you get in some traditions. Beware!!! Don't say I didn't warn you. Question the dogma! Are all beliefs in fact harmful? You do realize everything you are conveying to me in your post is also a belief, right? Are you conveying harm to me? Probably you wouldn't say that, right? So you must be a little more honest in your thinking.

Nobody, that I know (though some people sure seem like they do). So the reason people continue to expend such energy to maintain these beliefs is that they don't see the effects of these beliefs clearly enough. And how does one see more clearly?

One method, which is quite valuable, and which I appreciate you advocating for, is to examine one's beliefs.

Another method is to stop messing around with the mind so much, since the mind is constantly generating partial views.

Always. You can't get rid of partiality no matter what.

It constantly generates beliefs. As soon as we see through one belief, another pops up.

When this process occurs in a healthy manner it's the cause of the never-ending bliss and immortality. When it occurs in a diseased manner it's the cause of suffering and death.

It's not an inherently evil process that you must find a way to transcend or stop.

As soon as we see that effort is not actually helping, we believe that non-effort is the way to salvation. If one only sees the mind, then letting go of beliefs doesn't seem like much of an option. But if there is any recognition of existence prior to thought, then one can thoroughly familiarize oneself with that existence.

That's not true. You can only thoroughly familiarize yourself with something finite and static, and in other words unsurprising. Mind is alive. You'll never familiarize yourself with it fully no matter what you do. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try. It just means you'll always have reason to have a measure of philosophic humility. (not interpersonal humility... that stuff is junk, interpersonally you can be as arrogant as you want to be, it makes no difference as long as you're not deluded internally)

One returns one's energy to the only thing which can truly see thought, and hence allow it its natural function. This is what allows transformation.

You mean you relax. You don't return anything. You just relax yourself. Relaxing doesn't actually help for 99.999999% of the people.

Why not?

If you really know mind, you should know why not, especially considering I even explained why not.

I'll take it easy on you and explain it one more time:

Relaxing is intentional and alive. It is directional. It's not a zero. So only the wisest of the wise know how to relax in the way that can unwind all beliefs. And they got to be that wise not through relaxation but, strangely enough, through hard work.

The tricky part here is that often it is the mind that tries to do this, and the mind can't do this. The mind creates a division between the mind and that which sees mind, and then it tries to give its energy to that which sees mind, or at least it tries to stop doing the things it has always done. What mind is doing was never the problem. The shift of perspective doesn't have anything to do with the mind, though the mind cannot help but reflect it. The best the mind can do is to open up to the possibility that something else can do the heavy lifting.

Now I don't know if this is what you already know, and a part of something else doing the heavy lifting is your mind doing what it does the way that it does. But consider that something else doing the heavy lifting is also me writing this to you.

Heavy lifting is a misleading term, but from the mind's perspective it is appropriate. The only reason it is better to let something else do the heavy lifting, is that there is no heavy lifting to it.

Thank you for sharing your experience with lucid dreaming with me. I appreciate that. I sounds like you are learning your lessons.

Well, thank you for your evaluation of me.

三江源 · May 27, 2011

Cat,

Thank you. I see both the masculine and feminine approaches as both positive and negative. I value coherency of thought in many situations, especially in communication. However, the drive to coherency can lead to blindness/rigidness. I also value broad and flexible vision and non-contention. This tendency can lead to the accumulation of rotting views (don't know how better to phrase that). I don't see the two approaches as opposed. I actually see that both can manifest in a person at the same time and that they can actually strengthen one another. It is more a matter of how healthy our manifestations of the masculine and the feminine are.

Rotting views. ! Interesting.. within the cycle of creation and destruction a rotting view would/could turn to compost... and be very fertile ground for all kinds of seeding.

But yes, it is a matter of 'prepared consciousness' - logos mode is so endemic to our culture that we dont even see it , it's as the air we breathe.

One of the ways we become aware of it is when stories/films/books are open ended at their close, and the sense of familiar closure isnt given, and one can note the varying levels of discomfort around ambiguity, when the luxurious pandering of an ending isnt supplied.( "I didnt think much of the end?! what actually happened then>?!")

Todd · May 27, 2011

What you are saying now is different from what you said before. Before you said that the mind is synonymous with beliefs, but now you say that mind is what sees beliefs and manifests the world via beliefs, though is not separate from beliefs. Had you said this earlier, I would have expressed myself differently. I do not have a problem with using the word "mind" for this, but only so long as it is not limited to beliefs. Beliefs are an activity of the mind, not unlike currents in flowing water, or whirlpools.

I realize that I haven't expressed myself clearly. There is always more than can be expressed in a given situation. Making the point that beliefs are not the sum of mind doesn't leave as much room to discuss the nature and usefulness of beliefs.

Beliefs are the mechanism of manifestation. Ok. You don't like the word mechanism. I primarily use it because it gives a sense of activity which is impersonal/structural. I want to give this sense, since to our conscious minds, there are a great number of things which are shaping our experience, of which we are not aware but go right on shaping our experience. This in no way is meant to suggest that it is not alive or a process. Remember that no belief is actually other than that which creates and invigorates beliefs. This is why it is a simple thing for reality to change beliefs if it so chooses. If you prefer, we could use the word "means" or "the way that things come into manifestation".

Given that beliefs can be changed at will by that which creates and invigorates them, then it must not have a problem with them. Otherwise they would be different, or they would not be. And since beliefs are the mechanism of manifestation, then it isn't hard to see their value. Without beliefs, there would be nothing to experience (though I am not sure about that, since I still have beliefs).

When I say that we can live without beliefs, I am not speaking about this mechanism of manifestation, which actually deserves a different word, since it is a more fundamental thing than what most people think of when they think "beliefs". It is on the same spectrum though.

When I use the word beliefs with reference to letting them go, it corresponds with the way that what you call the neurotic mind functions. The neurotic mind is not unlike a loop, or a series of loops, of energy. I don't completely understand it, since it really seems to be a chicken and egg situation. Do the beliefs create the loop or does the the looping create the beliefs? They are more or less synonymous. In fact, both of the options above are limited by time, and it might be clearest to let go of all narrative and just equate beliefs and looping energy.

But I am going to go back to narrative for awhile.

As energy loops it becomes more or less frozen, since it has confined itself and the only possible outcome of adding more energy is that the loop becomes tighter. How to loops happen? They happen by partiality, by seeking one outcome or one vision over the other. Now here is a key distinction: partiality can lead to a loop or it can lead to a wave. Or it can lead to a loop that doesn't get overly tight. The good part of loops becoming overly tight, is that it can increase awareness of the tightness. The bad part is that it is uncomfortable and limiting (though to call those two things bad is arbitrary).

Since looping or curving is the means by which anything appears, then I wouldn't advocate for the ending of looping and curving. But there is a difference between pathological and healthy looping and curving. It is not so much that one necessarily becomes more conscious of the particular looping and curving, such that it doesn't create unconscious binds, though this is part of it, but rather one can catch onto the process by which looping and curving is pathologically energized. As one catches on, one can then choose to no longer play that game. This begins a process. As we no longer pathologically energize loops and curves, then they loosen and can more easily come in and out of being. This seems to be source of the bliss to which you referred. One might call it more or less frictionless manifestation.

Part of the loosening process seems to be a flowering into consciousness of what was previously unconscious. It is as if there is a threshold in the tightness of the loop beyond which the conscious mind can no longer remain aware of the particulars, but perhaps only tightness (here the conscious mind is distinct from the all-encompassing mind that we were referring to above). I am not really clear on this though. It may be that the loops and curves come into being in an unconscious way, become tight, but when they are relaxed (which actually takes the beginning of consciousness, even at a largely unconscious level, if that makes sense) then they tend to become more conscious. That seems to fit better with experience.

As you say, there are more shallow and deeper tendencies to create loops. We could also say peripheral and fundamental. As such, many, many individual loops can actually be a manifestation of a single tendency. One of the key tendencies for most humans is the tendency to seek pleasure and to avoid pain, or the tendency to seek advantage. There is value in this tendency, since it a part of our functioning as organisms, and on a deeper level it creates the tightness that allows us to become conscious. But there is a deeper view, which frees this tendency.

A more fundamental tendency might be to refer to oneself at all, to create an inner and an outer.

That isn't to say that one cannot see through the tendency to refer to oneself to a significant degree and not still have the pleasure/pain thing going in a pathological way. Or have pathological beliefs still going on on many different levels. It is just that they lose a big chunk of their energy and have a greater tendency to unravel. And yes, there are some beliefs that one actually needs to walk right into and really explore for them to begin to loosen up. I look at this more like surgery. It has its uses, but there are often side effects. The side effect in this case is an energizing of the tendency to see oneself as the agent directing life. I generally prefer more ecological approaches, balancing the tendencies of the whole to resolve local problems. Thats not to say that there aren't skillful surgeons, and that they don't do great work from time to time, but surgery is often not the best tool. So surgery is like ecology, in that it takes skill to do it well. If one doesn't do it well, then it can do more harm than good. This is true for both approaches.

I tend to see well-done surgery as a subset of ecology, though. If the surgery is not in service of ecology, then what is it for? In ecology, no method is sacrosanct, so long as the use is with regard to the whole.

To take it out of the analogy, directed contemplation can arise spontaneously out of the more general attitude of allowing everything to be as it is. However, to engage in directed contemplation without this attitude most often creates as much tension as it relieves, since it is based upon the unexamined intention of making something better or gaining more control. It is only really useful when it is engaged in for its own sake (which is how letting things be as they are looks on the surface), and it is only with this basis that it can release binds fruitfully.

I do not advocate relaxation as an approach. I advocate relaxation and knowing. They are synonymous, since knowing is inherent to relaxation. It is just that what most people think of as relaxation is not actually relaxation. This is why I don't use the word relax that often. I try to give a sense for the way of relaxing that is useful. I probably fail pretty often too.

Todd · May 27, 2011

Rotting views. ! Interesting.. within the cycle of creation and destruction a rotting view would/could turn to compost... and be very fertile ground for all kinds of seeding.

Yeah, I guess it depends on where the rotting is going on. If its in our kitchen, maybe not so useful, but if its out in nature, or in our garden, what beautiful rotting!

Immortal4life · May 27, 2011

It can mean different things to different people, at different levels. One of the lower levels is trying to change the physical world with ritual. Above that is probably attemting to change the physical world with material science, at that level magic is just what people call scientific knowledge who don't understand it. After that is probably affirmation, and repetition, as explained in the video in the OP. But the highest form of magic, is affecting the physical world through visualization.

goldisheavy · May 27, 2011

What you are saying now is different from what you said before. Before you said that the mind is synonymous with beliefs,

I have? Can I get a quote for this? It's possible I've made a mistake.

but now you say that mind is what sees beliefs and manifests the world via beliefs, though is not separate from beliefs. Had you said this earlier, I would have expressed myself differently. I do not have a problem with using the word "mind" for this, but only so long as it is not limited to beliefs. Beliefs are an activity of the mind, not unlike currents in flowing water, or whirlpools.

I disagree. When you say that beliefs are an activity like whirlpools you paint beliefs to be rather less stable and more dynamic than they really are. Of course I keep getting that impression from you on a consistent basis and not just in this post. Everything you say is consistent with the idea that beliefs are mutually disconnected, shallow, dynamic (quick and easy to change), etc.

Secondly, it's correct to say that everything is a belief of some sort. Why is that? Because beliefs that you label "beliefs" are just the tips of the psychic structures that you can be conscious of. These structures go deep and they don't break off in order to become something other than a belief. It's all belief all the way down, but perhaps belief isn't what you think it is? I think you're confusing belief as something that humans tend to profess with belief as a psychical structure in the mind, wherein profession is only the superficial quality of belief.

I realize that I haven't expressed myself clearly.

I don't think how you could have been any more clear. You are very eloquent in my opinion. I just don't agree with your estimation of the nature of beliefs, the role the mind and beliefs play in life, the best approach to healing the problems that beliefs cause, etc.

In short, my approach involves getting a little dirty. You have to dig in and find out why you believe what you do, how exactly you believe it, the effects this is having on life, what are the alternative beliefs and so on.

You appear to advocate just ignoring beliefs altogether. Just pay no mind to the problem and the problem will magically go away. Well, as I said, that doesn't work for the most part. It only sort of appears to work for a very special kind of people who have a very special kind of relaxation intention, who've been prepared one way or another for this.

I don't see how you being even more eloquent would change any of this.

There is always more than can be expressed in a given situation. Making the point that beliefs are not the sum of mind doesn't leave as much room to discuss the nature and usefulness of beliefs.

Beliefs are the mechanism of manifestation. Ok. You don't like the word mechanism. I primarily use it because it gives a sense of activity which is impersonal/structural.

The process is only impersonal in a conventional sense. I think ultimate it's more correct to consider the process deeply personal.

If you portray beliefs as something mechanistic, then you invite people to interact with beliefs as if they were levers or buttons on a giant machine. I don't think that's a productive relationship. Beliefs are ultimately (upon the final analysis) intentional and intention is completely alive and non-mechanical. Because beliefs are ultimately intentional manifestations they are ultimately not mechanical and they don't necessarily work like a mechanism.

Living entities can approximate mechanisms. For example, our bones in the context of our human skeleton, approximate a mechanism. At the same time, the bones are alive. You can imagine the bones as some kind of metal frame, and in fact, you can probable replace some of them with a metal frame in an adult being, but generally speaking, the bones wouldn't be what they are had they not been alive.

So I can see the temptation to call things mechanisms, because for many people that means things are less wooly and perhaps more approachable.

I want to give this sense, since to our conscious minds, there are a great number of things which are shaping our experience, of which we are not aware but go right on shaping our experience. This in no way is meant to suggest that it is not alive or a process. Remember that no belief is actually other than that which creates and invigorates beliefs. This is why it is a simple thing for reality to change beliefs if it so chooses. If you prefer, we could use the word "means" or "the way that things come into manifestation".

Given that beliefs can be changed at will by that which creates and invigorates them, then it must not have a problem with them. Otherwise they would be different, or they would not be.

This is right from at least a certain perspective, yes. The mind is ultimately unbiased. It's accommodating, like I said. However, if you look at the beliefs in 3 dimensions instead of 1 or 2, you can see how they are layered and this creates problems.

I'll give you a crude example.

For example the CEO of the company can set up an abusive and demeaning policy toward the workers. This obviously doesn't bother the CEO and the CEO is reaping the benefit of exploitation. At the same time, the workers are bothered by this.

In this case, the CEO is the high (or deep) level of the mind, and the worker is our conscious level of the mind. All levels of the mind are us. In other words, it's all you. So in a sense it's like having a part of your mind that is playing against another part. Obviously this will create suffering.

So just like this from some perspective the mind can be seen as unfeeling and ruthless, and it supports anything at all. From another perspective the mind is compassionate and rejects certain methods based on a set of very complicated criteria, such as what happens now, in the near future, far future, etc. etc.

It's up to the people to make the mind into an ally and a friend, because the mind is more than content playing the role of an adversary and a saboteur.

And since beliefs are the mechanism of manifestation, then it isn't hard to see their value. Without beliefs, there would be nothing to experience (though I am not sure about that, since I still have beliefs).

If you could honestly state "I have no beliefs" how would that be different from a belief? Beliefs are very very abstract "things." They are not necessarily something that's easily identifiable as such.

When I say that we can live without beliefs, I am not speaking about this mechanism of manifestation, which actually deserves a different word, since it is a more fundamental thing than what most people think of when they think "beliefs". It is on the same spectrum though.

OK, I am not against this idea. It seems plausible. What is the word you suggest? I'll be happy to consider it and switch over to the new word if it makes sense to me.

When I use the word beliefs with reference to letting them go, it corresponds with the way that what you call the neurotic mind functions. The neurotic mind is not unlike a loop, or a series of loops, of energy. I don't completely understand it, since it really seems to be a chicken and egg situation. Do the beliefs create the loop or does the the looping create the beliefs?

It's a stable phenomenon because it's self-reinforcing in the way you described. So if you don't get personally and intentionally involved, chances are, your beliefs will keep on running in these loops without you even knowing.

Most of our beliefs are automatic. Why is that? Because we aren't actually conscious of the true extent of our own intent. In other words, our intent is much vaster and more profound than what we think it is. We think our intent is what happens when we decide to go shopping. We say, "I intend to go shopping." Or "I intend to post on the forum" (as I am posting). If my intent changes direction I can stop the posting process in the middle of a half-written post. However our intent is bigger than this. But to become aware of this takes some effort because all that is habitual and conventional will resist that discovery.

Another example.

Let's say you move your arm. OK, let's say you lift your arm off the table and move it to the right. You put it down and relax.

What just happened?

Well, most people think the intent "activated" only when you decided to move the arm, then as soon as you relaxed, your intent "deactivated." This is wrong! The fact and the truth is that even while relaxed your arm is relaxed intentionally. Intent cannot activate or deactivate. It can only change course (according to conditioning beliefs and the circumstances, etc., so it doesn't change arbitrarily). So relaxation is active, it is participatory. At the same time, when you relax your arm, do you have to keep track of it consciously? No, right? You can even forget your arm is there for a time.

This is exactly what happens with our deep beliefs. All our beliefs are ultimately intentional, but they act as if they aren't because intent can be stable and directional in a relaxed and effortless state. It's easy to intend something and then forget about it. It's then easy to experience the fruit of your own intent as if you didn't intend it, and to even get surprised and shocked by it. These kinds of shenanigans are possible in the mind, thanks to the mind's limitless ability.

They are more or less synonymous. In fact, both of the options above are limited by time, and it might be clearest to let go of all narrative and just equate beliefs and looping energy.

But I am going to go back to narrative for awhile.

As energy loops it becomes more or less frozen, since it has confined itself and the only possible outcome of adding more energy is that the loop becomes tighter. How to loops happen? They happen by partiality, by seeking one outcome or one vision over the other. Now here is a key distinction: partiality can lead to a loop or it can lead to a wave. Or it can lead to a loop that doesn't get overly tight. The good part of loops becoming overly tight, is that it can increase awareness of the tightness. The bad part is that it is uncomfortable and limiting (though to call those two things bad is arbitrary).

Since looping or curving is the means by which anything appears, then I wouldn't advocate for the ending of looping and curving. But there is a difference between pathological and healthy looping and curving. It is not so much that one necessarily becomes more conscious of the particular looping and curving, such that it doesn't create unconscious binds, though this is part of it, but rather one can catch onto the process by which looping and curving is pathologically energized. As one catches on, one can then choose to no longer play that game. This begins a process. As we no longer pathologically energize loops and curves, then they loosen and can more easily come in and out of being. This seems to be source of the bliss to which you referred. One might call it more or less frictionless manifestation.

Yes! This is achieved through mindfulness rather than through forgetfulness and abandonment though. It's very difficult to suggest to people, "Just be aware of all that you believe." It's much easier and more practical to suggest people examine their beliefs one by one at their leisure, in non-mechanical and pleasant ways. This seems like a slow process, but it's not that slow. Because after the person examines say 10-100 beliefs, broad patterns begin to emerge without me calling express attention to the broad patterns.

The person is then empowered to chose which beliefs to energize and which to starve.

This is why I don't say, "Hey, just begin starving all your beliefs, summarily, without discrimination." This advocates a one size fits all approach, it advocates ignorance, and it advocates forgetfulness and non-awareness.

Part of the loosening process seems to be a flowering into consciousness of what was previously unconscious. It is as if there is a threshold in the tightness of the loop beyond which the conscious mind can no longer remain aware of the particulars, but perhaps only tightness (here the conscious mind is distinct from the all-encompassing mind that we were referring to above). I am not really clear on this though. It may be that the loops and curves come into being in an unconscious way, become tight, but when they are relaxed (which actually takes the beginning of consciousness, even at a largely unconscious level, if that makes sense) then they tend to become more conscious. That seems to fit better with experience.

As you say, there are more shallow and deeper tendencies to create loops. We could also say peripheral and fundamental. As such, many, many individual loops can actually be a manifestation of a single tendency.

Yes. That's what I mean when I say that all beliefs exist in layered networks. Congruent beliefs support each other and the deeper, more fundamental layers, hold up and energize the shallower layers. At the same time contradicting beliefs create friction. Some amount of friction is likely healthy, but I prefer to let people be the judge. That's why I don't advocate extreme coherence. It's OK to have a slightly warped or bent up mindset as long as the mindset is not actively trying to destroy or sabotage itself.

One of the key tendencies for most humans is the tendency to seek pleasure and to avoid pain, or the tendency to seek advantage. There is value in this tendency, since it a part of our functioning as organisms, and on a deeper level it creates the tightness that allows us to become conscious. But there is a deeper view, which frees this tendency.

A more fundamental tendency might be to refer to oneself at all, to create an inner and an outer.

That isn't to say that one cannot see through the tendency to refer to oneself to a significant degree and not still have the pleasure/pain thing going in a pathological way. Or have pathological beliefs still going on on many different levels. It is just that they lose a big chunk of their energy and have a greater tendency to unravel. And yes, there are some beliefs that one actually needs to walk right into and really explore for them to begin to loosen up. I look at this more like surgery.

Sounds painful and aggressive. I look at it like shining a flashlight into the dark corners.

It has its uses, but there are often side effects. The side effect in this case is an energizing of the tendency to see oneself as the agent directing life.

We don't direct life, but we influence life. To see oneself as the passive and helpless victim of life is as wrong as to see oneself completely controlling and directing life. We have influence over life. It correct and moral to admit that. And yes, we have a degree of agency.

As the person becomes more and more skillful in influencing life, the person finds the need for less and less overt and gross intentional forms. But that's a process you must allow people to experience. You should not try to short-circuit the process by saying, "just don't get intentionally involved." That's very wrong.

On the contrary, intentional involvement is how the person becomes more conscious and aware of the hidden beliefs and strange things happening deep in the psyche.

After a very long time of such involvement intent becomes smoother and more effortless. But you can't get there without getting dirty in some way first.

I generally prefer more ecological approaches, balancing the tendencies of the whole to resolve local problems. Thats not to say that there aren't skillful surgeons, and that they don't do great work from time to time, but surgery is often not the best tool. So surgery is like ecology, in that it takes skill to do it well. If one doesn't do it well, then it can do more harm than good. This is true for both approaches.

I tend to see well-done surgery as a subset of ecology, though. If the surgery is not in service of ecology, then what is it for? In ecology, no method is sacrosanct, so long as the use is with regard to the whole.

Yes, guess what? When I ask people to examine their belief for coherence, what does it mean? It means to examine the belief in a holistic perspective. How does this belief work with all the others? How does it relate to the whole? Surprising, eh?

To take it out of the analogy, directed contemplation can arise spontaneously out of the more general attitude of allowing everything to be as it is. However, to engage in directed contemplation without this attitude most often creates as much tension as it relieves, since it is based upon the unexamined intention of making something better or gaining more control. It is only really useful when it is engaged in for its own sake (which is how letting things be as they are looks on the surface), and it is only with this basis that it can release binds fruitfully.

I agree. This is why I say don't make this into a formal practice. I said this a number of times, didn't I? Did you get the significance of what I said when I objected to you picturing the contemplative process as something formulaic and predictably interventionist? I said it was more of an attitude or a life style that works best when mixed with ample rest.

I do not advocate relaxation as an approach. I advocate relaxation and knowing.

They are synonymous, since knowing is inherent to relaxation. It is just that what most people think of as relaxation is not actually relaxation. This is why I don't use the word relax that often. I try to give a sense for the way of relaxing that is useful. I probably fail pretty often too.

I like it.

Edited May 27, 2011 by goldisheavy

Birch · May 28, 2011

Heya Mr GIH.

"I don't see the truth as necessarily something that's polarized into 0 or 1, yes or no, black or white. I see things as shades of gray, as hues of color, as belonging somewhere on a continuum, or on a spectrum of values. Something can be 90% true, or somewhat true, or false for a small but significant reason, and so on. That's how my mind operates."

Something of a 'yin/yang' thing? Or more of a blend? See yin and yang as far as I can tell do not mix into grey.

"So why don't we just call the pretend-materialist something else? Well, it's actually a complicated question. First, we have to honor people's self-reports to some degree. So if someone says, "I am a materialist" that's a self-report and we have to at least try to give it the benefit of the doubt. At least."

Well, you only said you were and some other people were. I haven't asked anyone else about being a materialist because I'd rather avoid freaking people out (except maybe quantum theorists and chemists and magicians and taoists ) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about yourself. No-one else. And I'm only doing it because I'm in love with Sam Harris, who says something similar :wub:

'Alternatively this is what the person really believes about oneself but is mistaken. It's possible to be sincerely mistaken about oneself.'

How?

"So because of all these possibilities it's not always wise to "just call it something else.""

Well, wouldn't you have to then not call it "materialism"? I'm confused.

"Here's how I handle the problem. I read what you say and allow the meaning to sink in, then I forget the words and reply only to the meaning."

And how do you get to what I mean, quite exactly? Not like I'm there telling you all this.

"I don't focus on the words unless the words are crucial in some way. I find that often the meaning is somewhere between the words, but yes, sometimes a single word is dramatically important to the meaning of the whole post, so it becomes important to investigate the word."

Aren't you making up part of the meaning yourself then? I mean I'm using words because I'm trying to get a meaning to you but if you ignore them and just make stuff up then what?

"My rate of success depends on how much of a hurry I am in to respond. If I am just itching to respond, there is a chance I won't properly assimilate the meaning and just respond to the words instead."

I wonder which I'd rather you did. Which has the best chance of really being understood the way I mean it (and not the way you mean it?)

"I don't want to say I have some belief I will absolutely never change. However, I value some of my beliefs more than others. I see some beliefs are less likely to change. It doesn't mean that I will absolutely never change them. It just means when I look into the future, I don't currently see any reason for change. So when I told you I am not likely to change some belief, I gave you a current time estimate, if you will. As with all estimates, it's not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.

I like to see all my commitments as temporary, and this includes philosophical commitments above all. Anything less and it turns into a prison for my mind, and I don't like that feeling. I like to think that all the doors are open, rather than welded shut. So if I get bored or need to move on for whatever reason, I just close one door and open another. I don't want to think I am permanently stuck in my mind in some way."

I don't think anyone wants to think that But then we get surprised doing it.

"People are not ever 100% identical. Not even the so-called "identical twins" are identical. With this in mind, obviously we all have something in common. Coincidence of intent doesn't have to be interpreted as a perfect identity between two people in time. It's this 0 or 1 bifurcated thinking again, imo."

Meh.

"Disagreements are most pleasurable and most productive when they are centered around a common base of agreement. That's just my experience and opinion. For disagreements to be productive, it's best that they are small or manageable. If some disagreements are dramatic, then such disagreements may cause too much psychological trouble to be productive. But the tolerance to a specific severity of a disagreement is like the tolerance to a specific degree of pain, it varies from person to person."

I dunno. I almost think it's just indulgence to niggle a point or a few tweaks of a concept. Yes it hurts when we are in real opposition IMO/IME but I'd like to see that discussion happen more than I enjoy spending time niggling over little differences.

"Well, I am actually in the process of doing so, but it's not so simple, right? Turns out as I begin to change it, other things I cared about get impacted. Then I have to decide whether or not I am ready to give up those things (or ready to change them to the point of non-recognition). When I am ready with the whole thing, I will change, or I will discover that I've already changed.

In many ways I am already less of a materialist than a lot of people. "

How do you know?

And if your real name is Sam Harris, PM me

OK, so you're getting rid of the split. Obviously you're more powerful than the split, you're more alive than it. The split is just sitting there and waits for you to change it.

Contemplation, meditation, lucid dreaming, divination, magic, hypnosis, sports, science, craftsmanship, and many more.

You are more alive than all your assumptions. If that wasn't the case, you'd have no power over your assumptions.

goldisheavy · May 28, 2011

Heya Mr GIH.

"I don't see the truth as necessarily something that's polarized into 0 or 1, yes or no, black or white. I see things as shades of gray, as hues of color, as belonging somewhere on a continuum, or on a spectrum of values. Something can be 90% true, or somewhat true, or false for a small but significant reason, and so on. That's how my mind operates."

Something of a 'yin/yang' thing? Or more of a blend? See yin and yang as far as I can tell do not mix into grey.

They sure do mix into gray. How do you think the actual gray color comes about?

For example, how does this color right here come about?

"So why don't we just call the pretend-materialist something else? Well, it's actually a complicated question. First, we have to honor people's self-reports to some degree. So if someone says, "I am a materialist" that's a self-report and we have to at least try to give it the benefit of the doubt. At least."

Well, you only said you were and some other people were. I haven't asked anyone else about being a materialist because I'd rather avoid freaking people out (except maybe quantum theorists and chemists and magicians and taoists ) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about yourself. No-one else. And I'm only doing it because I'm in love with Sam Harris, who says something similar

Ah Well, I agree with Sam Harris on a lot of things. So it's not all that strange to hear you say that.

'Alternatively this is what the person really believes about oneself but is mistaken. It's possible to be sincerely mistaken about oneself.'

How?

How can this be? How can you think you believe X and when an extreme situation arises you find yourself acting in a way that proves you don't really believe X at all? How can this happen? Is that the question? If it is, I don't have an answer. I guess I could say the mind is amazing like that sometimes, but that's not necessarily an answer.

"So because of all these possibilities it's not always wise to "just call it something else.""

Well, wouldn't you have to then not call it "materialism"? I'm confused.

At this point I am confused as well. Do you still remember your original problem? May I suggest that if you don't, the problem resolved itself? If the problem is important, you'll be able to restate it again.

"Here's how I handle the problem. I read what you say and allow the meaning to sink in, then I forget the words and reply only to the meaning."

And how do you get to what I mean, quite exactly? Not like I'm there telling you all this.

Well, I read what you type. An impression takes shape as I read. Then instead of responding to your words, I respond to the impression I have of what you wrote.

How do you talk to people?

"I don't focus on the words unless the words are crucial in some way. I find that often the meaning is somewhere between the words, but yes, sometimes a single word is dramatically important to the meaning of the whole post, so it becomes important to investigate the word."

Aren't you making up part of the meaning yourself then? I mean I'm using words because I'm trying to get a meaning to you but if you ignore them and just make stuff up then what?

I don't purposefully make stuff up. I try to get a precise impression that's as devoid of bias as I can make it. Nonetheless, I am biased. So the resulting impression is most definitely contextualized by my mindset.

"My rate of success depends on how much of a hurry I am in to respond. If I am just itching to respond, there is a chance I won't properly assimilate the meaning and just respond to the words instead."

I wonder which I'd rather you did. Which has the best chance of really being understood the way I mean it (and not the way you mean it?)

I don't think so. Remember, it's what's in my heart that matters and not the words. If I responded to the mere words without contributing a heart reflection, such response would be much less valuable. You may think such a thing is better if the words are the kinds of words you like to see, but it would be a deception or a misdirection on your part. You'd be fooling yourself if you could get me to cooperate the way you described (just replying to the words without bothering with the core meaning of the message).

"I don't want to say I have some belief I will absolutely never change. However, I value some of my beliefs more than others. I see some beliefs are less likely to change. It doesn't mean that I will absolutely never change them. It just means when I look into the future, I don't currently see any reason for change. So when I told you I am not likely to change some belief, I gave you a current time estimate, if you will. As with all estimates, it's not guaranteed to be 100% accurate.

I like to see all my commitments as temporary, and this includes philosophical commitments above all. Anything less and it turns into a prison for my mind, and I don't like that feeling. I like to think that all the doors are open, rather than welded shut. So if I get bored or need to move on for whatever reason, I just close one door and open another. I don't want to think I am permanently stuck in my mind in some way."

I don't think anyone wants to think that But then we get surprised doing it.

"People are not ever 100% identical. Not even the so-called "identical twins" are identical. With this in mind, obviously we all have something in common. Coincidence of intent doesn't have to be interpreted as a perfect identity between two people in time. It's this 0 or 1 bifurcated thinking again, imo."

Meh.

"Disagreements are most pleasurable and most productive when they are centered around a common base of agreement. That's just my experience and opinion. For disagreements to be productive, it's best that they are small or manageable. If some disagreements are dramatic, then such disagreements may cause too much psychological trouble to be productive. But the tolerance to a specific severity of a disagreement is like the tolerance to a specific degree of pain, it varies from person to person."

I dunno. I almost think it's just indulgence to niggle a point or a few tweaks of a concept. Yes it hurts when we are in real opposition IMO/IME but I'd like to see that discussion happen more than I enjoy spending time niggling over little differences.

Alright, so then if you have a significant disagreement, bring it up. I am fine with that. And if I get tired, I just take a break or a nap.

"Well, I am actually in the process of doing so, but it's not so simple, right? Turns out as I begin to change it, other things I cared about get impacted. Then I have to decide whether or not I am ready to give up those things (or ready to change them to the point of non-recognition). When I am ready with the whole thing, I will change, or I will discover that I've already changed.

In many ways I am already less of a materialist than a lot of people. "

How do you know?

And if your real name is Sam Harris, PM me

:lol: Maybe you should email him yourself? Or go to a book signing event? I don't know. I am not Sam Harris.

Edited May 28, 2011 by goldisheavy

Todd · May 28, 2011

I have? Can I get a quote for this? It's possible I've made a mistake.

"First, you make a clear distinction between beliefs and what lies under the beliefs on a deeper level of the psyche. I don't make such a distinction. So right then and there I have one less polarizing and bifurcating line running through my psyche than do you."

and, from your most recent post

"Secondly, it's correct to say that everything is a belief of some sort."

It seems that I have misunderstood you based upon these quotes and similar. Since what I was referring to when I spoke of something more fundamental than beliefs is what you refer to when you use the term "mind", when you said that there was no distinction between beliefs and the more fundamental level, I interpreted that as you saying that they were equal. I don't see them as equal, though they are not separate. Your more recent comments suggest that you see it similarly, the quote from your most recent post notwithstanding.

I like to make a distinction between how beliefs are a means by which things manifest, and that which creates and invigorates beliefs, without becoming separate or even different from them.

The reason I like to make this distinction is that it takes the power out of beliefs and puts it back where it has always been-- that which experiences and creates and invigorates beliefs.

As to the word, "belief", I am fine using the words "psychic structure", which is close to the words "psychical structure" that you used in your last post. I prefer psychic, since it is the more common word with identical meaning to my knowledge. I don't normally like creating and defining terms, since it is a slippery slope and can lead to a certain rigidity of thinking, but if it gets you to stop assuming that I am referring to shallow professed beliefs when I use the word beliefs, then that might facilitate our conversation.

I see three main areas where we disagree.

The first is that you feel that it is difficult to change unhealthy psychic structures, whereas I say that it is easy (or actually, automatic), provided one sees them clearly. If the structure has not changed, then it hasn't been seen clearly. The effort to change the structure prevents clear seeing.

The reason that this is so is ironically one of the points that you have been making-- that psychic structures are not object-like structures, which have independent existence. They are alive. But they participate in aliveness in the same way that all seeming objects participate in aliveness-- as a subset of the greater aliveness. No matter how long they seem to last, or how stable they seem, they are but ephemera to that which creates and invigorates them. They cease to be the instant that they are no longer invigorated. The reason they seem to take a long time to resolve, is that we have yet to see them clearly. Just because something appears to be difficult to see clearly does not change means by which change occurs.

And where does the idea that change should occur come from? By focusing on psychic structures we easily lose track of what real change is. Which is more fundamental-- a change in psychic structures, or a lasting recognition of that which gives rise to psychic structures, in the midst of psychic structures?

Secondly, you seem to think that only special people can access this, whereas I think that anyone can access it, if they so intend. To intend this is not harder than to intend to contemplate beliefs. Since it is not harder, then I choose to advocate for this, when I think there is a chance that a person might be interested. If they are interested in contemplating beliefs then that is great too. It is not either or, but one is more direct and fundamental. It can form the basis for a totally different relationship with life.

Regardless, a person will intend what they will intend and I do not ascribe agency to myself beyond the fact that I am not separate from life. There is no need to locate the intention in myself or in another. There is what is happening, and despite what you may think, this is not a passive attitude. It is a liberating attitude. It begins the process of clear seeing without creating artifacts of partiality. This seeing is also not passive. It is vibrant.

Now to coherency of psychic structures: Ecological approaches can also be misguided. In living systems it is nearly ubiquitous for mutually opposing systems to work together to create dynamic homeostasis. The word dynamic is important, because just homeostasis really boils down to stasis. Dynamic means constantly flowing and responsive to inputs from the environment, whether internal or internal. So if things move too far in one direction, then the system that moves them in the opposite direction kicks in. If things move too far in the opposite direction, then the other system kicks in and moves them back toward homeostasis. There is a natural tension between them, and together they create something that neither alone could achieve. This something is the experience of life.

I suspect that psychic structures, as a manifestation of life, often relate to one another in a similar way. They oppose one another, though not it in a way that merely causes friction, but which actually allows a third quality to emerge. Once more, it is the experience of life. Thus coherence does not lie in a lack of contradiction, since this would remove the conditions by which life is allowed to manifest. Coherence is a quality of that which creates and invigorates psychic structures, is the only thing that can fully see psychic structures, and is not separate from psychic structures. It is only in this that coherence can be found.

In terms of life, a lack of contradiction is actually not useful at all, as in cancers and other catastrophic losses of homeostasis, though they have their place as well.

You might define coherency as the overall healthfulness of the way that one's psychic structures interact. Using that definition, then I do see value in coherent psychic structures, but a fundamental aspect of such healthfulness is contradiction, and to suggest otherwise is to invite rather negative consequences, such as fanaticism, certainty of belief, and willful blindness.

Oolong Rabbit · May 28, 2011

Goldisheavy, thank you, thank you, thank you!!! You have filled in some of the blanks on where my intuition was guiding me. This really clarifies why many of the taoist writings warn against too much learning. Much learning tends to create more and more tangled belief structures, which become "blockages" to manifesting one's intention.

三江源 · May 28, 2011

Yeah, I guess it depends on where the rotting is going on. If its in our kitchen, maybe not so useful, but if its out in nature, or in our garden, what beautiful rotting!

Rotting in the kitchen..hmm.. is it blue cheese, or sauerkraut?

三江源 · May 28, 2011

Goldisheavy, thank you, thank you, thank you!!! You have filled in some of the blanks on where my intuition was guiding me. This really clarifies why many of the taoist writings warn against too much learning. Much learning tends to create more and more tangled belief structures, which become "blockages" to manifesting one's intention.

Yes, that is one reason. There are many others to do with learning to find one's own wisdom and emptying one's pot and not making the head the king of one's country.

Oolong Rabbit · May 28, 2011

Everything you say makes perfect sense to me and nothing you said above contradicts anything I am saying. I think the difference here is that you and I have different ideas about what is mind. You might think that the mind is something locked away privately in your skull. I don't think that way at all. By believing in the Taoist deity, you've magically empowered the deity to be what it is. Secondly, your belief in that deity does not contradict your other beliefs -- this means it's a coherent and effective belief for you (and likely for many others as well). And it all worked nicely.

So you tend to ascribe the results to the specifics of your practice, such as the specific deity, the specific ritual and so on. I ascribe the result to something less specific, to your intent and to the general principles of manifestation (intent, coherent state of mind and possibly some other principle I am forgetting). So in my way of thinking, someone can get the same result as you from an Egyptian deity. Or you can even get the same result from a completely fictional deity that's been properly empowered. So a Chaos magician can empower Mickey Mouse as a deity and get the same results if the empowerment is good enough.

This in no way means that the Taoist deities (or vajrayana deities, or Egyptian, etc.) have no value. They do. The value they have is that they have the weight of tradition behind them, which makes them more believable and more acceptable for many people. And this is important. When something is more believable than something else, we can say it is more coherent with your mentality. And like I said, coherency is critical for magic. So if Taoist deities sound most plausible and most interesting to you, they will be the most powerful and the most effective deities for you and there is no practical reason to change anything for you. Key word "practical." If you're not content with something that just works, if you want to know how it all works under the hood in a more general and more universal sense, there is a good reason to keep investigating.

I would agree for the most part, but could you elaborate a bit on this one point. Are you saying that external things do not have any inherent power aside from your personal beliefs towards them. Wouldn't the images of the taoist deities be "charged" by the intention of millions of people worshipping (directing intention/mind)for generations?

Todd · May 28, 2011

Rotting in the kitchen..hmm.. is it blue cheese, or sauerkraut?

Touche

goldisheavy · May 28, 2011

"First, you make a clear distinction between beliefs and what lies under the beliefs on a deeper level of the psyche. I don't make such a distinction. So right then and there I have one less polarizing and bifurcating line running through my psyche than do you."

and, from your most recent post

"Secondly, it's correct to say that everything is a belief of some sort."

It seems that I have misunderstood you based upon these quotes and similar. Since what I was referring to when I spoke of something more fundamental than beliefs is what you refer to when you use the term "mind", when you said that there was no distinction between beliefs and the more fundamental level, I interpreted that as you saying that they were equal. I don't see them as equal, though they are not separate. Your more recent comments suggest that you see it similarly, the quote from your most recent post notwithstanding.

I see what happened. You explain it very well. So the way I presented the issue appeared to make everything too similar and to my mind you appeared to draw dramatic difference and boundaries through the contents of the mind, when in fact you also didn't believe in any such discrete boundedness. So, I erred on the side of too similar and you appeared to have erred on the side of too different.

The reason I like to sometimes err on the side of too similar is because it gives people the idea that what they can currently consciously observe is a valid doorway. In other words, mind and belief are phenomena people believe they can observe. Never mind that mind is not what people think. Never mind that beliefs go deeper and are stranger than people think. People have a good starting point this way. However if I err on the side of too different, then I just lose people, because I suggest there is something beyond mind and beyond beliefs, and to most people it means there is something mystical beyond ordinary experience. It sounds alluring to some, but to those who want to do some learning, it also sounds like there is no way to get "there" from "here" when in fact "here" is a type of "there" to begin with.

I like to make a distinction between how beliefs are a means by which things manifest, and that which creates and invigorates beliefs, without becoming separate or even different from them.

So do I. That's what I call the intent. And I think I know why you don't like this. You think intent is too fiddly and too micromanage-y. When we micromanage things we often lack wisdom. We don't see the complete picture and so we make a lot of mistakes and create unnecessary pain. So you oppose micromanagement for this reason, right?

Nonetheless, while it's true that micromanagement is more often bad than not, people need to learn about how intent works one way or another, and the surest way to learn is to use one's intent in a judicious way. Not too aggressively and not too meekly or sluggishly.

As the expression goes, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Also, it's worth noting that I always call for examining one's belief but I don't much say "change your beliefs" and I never say imperatively, "change belief X to belief Y" where X and Y are some specific beliefs. That's because when beliefs are examined and found to be less than ideal, they start to naturally and slowly change simply from being under the light of the examination. It's hard to avoid it completely, but I try to rely on as little dogma as I can.

The reason I like to make this distinction is that it takes the power out of beliefs and puts it back where it has always been-- that which experiences and creates and invigorates beliefs.

That's very skillful. Although you appeared to present that something as foreign to one's own being at first.

As to the word, "belief", I am fine using the words "psychic structure", which is close to the words "psychical structure" that you used in your last post. I prefer psychic, since it is the more common word with identical meaning to my knowledge. I don't normally like creating and defining terms, since it is a slippery slope and can lead to a certain rigidity of thinking, but if it gets you to stop assuming that I am referring to shallow professed beliefs when I use the word beliefs, then that might facilitate our conversation.

So why is using the word "beliefs" bad? "Psychic structure" is not bad, but it's a mouthful and has that jargon feel to it, which I don't like. I don't like to make a habit of relying on too much jargon.

I see three main areas where we disagree.

The first is that you feel that it is difficult to change unhealthy psychic structures, whereas I say that it is easy (or actually, automatic), provided one sees them clearly. If the structure has not changed, then it hasn't been seen clearly. The effort to change the structure prevents clear seeing.

Yes, we disagree here. You see seeing as something that an active effort can disturb. Since seeing for me is more like envisioning, it's an intentional active process, it is not something that activity can disturb. Further, activity can enable a clearer seeing.

Further, you appear to separate the effort involved in changing something from the effort involved in seeing something. I don't do that. So when I say beliefs are hard to change, it's mainly because they are hard to observe accurately. The change, once you see things properly, is as you say, automatic. Or I would say automagic.

It's kind of like me and you have a different way to bill the patient. On your bill the X-ray (seeing things thusly) is provided as a separate item. On my bill it's included into the price of the treatment.

The reason that this is so is ironically one of the points that you have been making-- that psychic structures are not object-like structures, which have independent existence. They are alive. But they participate in aliveness in the same way that all seeming objects participate in aliveness-- as a subset of the greater aliveness. No matter how long they seem to last, or how stable they seem, they are but ephemera to that which creates and invigorates them. They cease to be the instant that they are no longer invigorated. The reason they seem to take a long time to resolve, is that we have yet to see them clearly. Just because something appears to be difficult to see clearly does not change means by which change occurs.

Very well said. And I agree with you completely, except that I would add this too: if you enjoy eating ice cream and you see clearly how easy it is to stop eating it, but you enjoy it, you're not going to stop. In other words, it's possible to see things clearly and still not see them stop in the case where you genuinely enjoy something.

If you are genuinely tired of something then as soon as you see it clearly, it's poof, resolved. Just as you say.

I think this is an important thing to mention because our total field of experience is not necessarily something we impartially and evenly dislike. There are elements we like and elements we don't. Of course when you see things clearly the elements we don't like will get transformed automagically. However, the problem is that things are very entangled, snarled, twisted and genuinely strange. So it's hard to see anything clearly.

And I maintain that trying to see passively is even harder for the reason I explained above.

And where does the idea that change should occur come from? By focusing on psychic structures we easily lose track of what real change is. Which is more fundamental-- a change in psychic structures, or a lasting recognition of that which gives rise to psychic structures, in the midst of psychic structures?

You can't have one without the other. Everything is important. Intent is the guide and understanding it is the key to everything, but remember, a person has to start somewhere, and non-interventionist passivity is not a good start. Remember that structures have habit energy behind them. Habit energy is like a portion of our own intent to which we have become numb or oblivious. Just being passive is equal to continuing with a status quo.

And like I said there is a very special kind of passivity that doesn't fall into that trap, but that's not something you are explaining since you're not explaining that not all passivities are the same. So you're actually kind of tricking people a bit, which is mean.

Secondly, you seem to think that only special people can access this, whereas I think that anyone can access it, if they so intend.

I disagree. That's because in order to enact this special and unique kind of passivity you already must see everything clearly. So you must already be at or near the end of the spiritual path.

Do you think everyone is almost at the end of the path? Don't get confused now. You seem pretty wise, so maybe you are close to the end, but don't assume everyone is precisely just like you.

It's important to encourage people without giving them over-optimistic impressions. Why is that? Because if people become over-optimistic, and the great thing they want doesn't materialize soon, they get very upset, or even pissed off, which has a negative effect on the path.

To intend this is not harder than to intend to contemplate beliefs.

Provided you've already paid for the X-ray.

Since it is not harder, then I choose to advocate for this, when I think there is a chance that a person might be interested. If they are interested in contemplating beliefs then that is great too. It is not either or, but one is more direct and fundamental. It can form the basis for a totally different relationship with life.

That's right. My approach is more direct. Why? Because passivity is blindness. It is not sight. Authentic seeing is not like human seeing, it is more like envisioning. It's a process that's not only not disturbed by participatory involvement, it's enhanced by it.

In my approach I recognize and make use of everything you are discussing, by the way. But if the person doesn't feel responsible for even one of their beliefs, there is no way the same person can begin to take responsibility for all of them simultaneously. It just doesn't work like that.

Regardless, a person will intend what they will intend and I do not ascribe agency to myself beyond the fact that I am not separate from life. There is no need to locate the intention in myself or in another. There is what is happening, and despite what you may think, this is not a passive attitude. It is a liberating attitude. It begins the process of clear seeing without creating artifacts of partiality. This seeing is also not passive. It is vibrant.

It's liberating post the X-ray.

Now to coherency of psychic structures: Ecological approaches can also be misguided. In living systems it is nearly ubiquitous for mutually opposing systems to work together to create dynamic homeostasis. The word dynamic is important, because just homeostasis really boils down to stasis. Dynamic means constantly flowing and responsive to inputs from the environment, whether internal or internal. So if things move too far in one direction, then the system that moves them in the opposite direction kicks in. If things move too far in the opposite direction, then the other system kicks in and moves them back toward homeostasis. There is a natural tension between them, and together they create something that neither alone could achieve. This something is the experience of life.

I suspect that psychic structures, as a manifestation of life, often relate to one another in a similar way. They oppose one another, though not it in a way that merely causes friction, but which actually allows a third quality to emerge. Once more, it is the experience of life. Thus coherence does not lie in a lack of contradiction, since this would remove the conditions by which life is allowed to manifest.

This is a good point. I appreciate hearing this. I agree that contradictions ultimately cannot be completely eliminated, nor is this the goal really. We can say there are two goals in the process of looking for coherency:

1. Eliminate the needless or unskillful contradictions.

2. Become the master of one's own contradictions, rather than a victim of one's own contradictions.

Contradictions manifest clashes. Clashes are part of life, but at the same time, if all you do is clash, it is not very enjoyable for most people. By all means if there is a rare individual that enjoys constant internal clashing that manifests as external clashing, such individual would be ill advised to follow anything I say. Such individual would be better off not listening to either me or you.

Coherence is a quality of that which creates and invigorates psychic structures, is the only thing that can fully see psychic structures, and is not separate from psychic structures. It is only in this that coherence can be found.

That's not good. You're completely assimilating the quality of coherence into intent. Ultimately intent is that which is always coherent whether we like it or not. Nonetheless, currently enacted beliefs when badly incoherent in a relatively visible way cause unnecessary pain and suffering to many people (and not just yourself!).

Further, we can say that since the invigorated beliefs are nothing in and of themselves, intent is also what's incoherent to begin with! So seeing ultimate intent as possibly coherent and possibly incoherent is also correct, and strangely, not contradictory to the approach in the paragraph above.

In your description a person cannot be voluntarily incoherent because intent (that which invigorates beliefs) cannot ultimately be incoherent. You see intent as the ultimate resolving ground which is always coherent (or it would fail its function as a resolving ground). So in your description a person cannot meaningfully become the master of one's own incoherence.

In my description a person can reduce one's own incoherence or increase it at will, effortlessly (eventually).

In your description a person experiences seeming incoherence and then relaxes and the seeming incoherence is replaced by a more true and more real underlying ultimate coherence. So you describe coherence as something more fundamental than incoherence.

I describe coherence and incoherence as both being equal features of intent. Neither is more fundamental than the other. Ultimately the intent is mysterious and it cannot be described as being completely this way or completely that way.

In terms of life, a lack of contradiction is actually not useful at all, as in cancers and other catastrophic losses of homeostasis, though they have their place as well.

You might define coherency as the overall healthfulness of the way that one's psychic structures interact.

Precisely! It's not a mechanic quality.

Using that definition, then I do see value in coherent psychic structures, but a fundamental aspect of such healthfulness is contradiction, and to suggest otherwise is to invite rather negative consequences, such as fanaticism, certainty of belief, and willful blindness.

That's a fair warning. Too much of anything is bad. Too much coherence and too mechanic of coherence is as bad as too little. Well said.

Edited May 28, 2011 by goldisheavy

goldisheavy · May 28, 2011

I would agree for the most part, but could you elaborate a bit on this one point. Are you saying that external things do not have any inherent power aside from your personal beliefs towards them. Wouldn't the images of the taoist deities be "charged" by the intention of millions of people worshipping (directing intention/mind)for generations?

This is true for most people, but not for everyone. Those who can see beyond the convention can drain convention of its power, if they so wish. Most people take convention for granted. They are like fish swimming in the water who take the water for granted. The fish have hard time imagining that there is something like the air or even empty space. So people who operate within a conventional mindset have difficulty imagining that something other than a conventional mindset can be possible. And so they also have difficulty comprehending the implications of that possibility, and even if they do comprehend, it can then be difficult to accept those implications at heart level.

Observe how all these beliefs are mutually reinforcing:

1. I believe I am a real person.

2. My intent is real.

3. I believe other people are real people.

4. Their intents are real.

5. My intent manifests in greater and greater ways if I keep it focused over time.

6. The same is true for other people's intent.

7. Intents of multiple people can combine.

8. Tradition is valid.

So right there I outlined a sample of 8 beliefs which all play off each other and reinforce each other.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se.

And yet some people need to move beyond the conventional understanding on the path of enlightenment. For those specific people being trapped within convention without seeing convention for what it is, is bad.

Edited May 28, 2011 by goldisheavy

Oolong Rabbit · May 28, 2011

This is true for most people, but not for everyone. Those who can see beyond the convention can drain convention of its power, if they so wish. Most people take convention for granted. They are like fish swimming in the water who take the water for granted. The fish have hard time imagining that there is something like the air or even empty space. So people who operate within a conventional mindset have difficulty imagining that something other than a conventional mindset can be possible. And so they also have difficulty comprehending the implications of that possibility, and even if they do comprehend, it can then be difficult to accept those implications at heart level.

Observe how all these beliefs are mutually reinforcing:

1. I believe I am a real person.

2. My intent is real.

3. I believe other people are real people.

4. Their intents are real.

5. My intent manifests in greater and greater ways if I keep it focused over time.

6. The same is true for other people's intent.

7. Intents of multiple people can combine.

8. Tradition is valid.

So right there I outlined a sample of 8 beliefs which all play off each other and reinforce each other.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing per se.

And yet some people need to move beyond the conventional understanding on the path of enlightenment. For those specific people being trapped within convention without seeing convention for what it is, is bad.

Thank you for elaborating. I would dare say everyone needs to move beyond the conventional understanding on the path of enlightenment. :-)

Birch · May 28, 2011

Hey Mr GIH

"

They sure do mix into gray. How do you think the actual gray color comes about?

For example, how does this color right here come about?"

No, this is not yin/yang. They never mix. They are within each other and transform into each other but they don't become one (because the one became two to start with, if I remember correctly) So it's a bit like that conversation we're having with Steve about how all-pervading consciousness "gets" to become conscious of it(self). Shiva and Shakti, whatever you want.

"Ah Well, I agree with Sam Harris on a lot of things. So it's not all that strange to hear you say that."

Yes, but are you as nice to look at ?

"How can this be? How can you think you believe X and when an extreme situation arises you find yourself acting in a way that proves you don't really believe X at all? How can this happen? Is that the question? If it is, I don't have an answer. I guess I could say the mind is amazing like that sometimes, but that's not necessarily an answer."

Nope, that was it. Happens all the time IME. This 'what I'm like' thing is probably not worth 2cts.

"At this point I am confused as well. Do you still remember your original problem? May I suggest that if you don't, the problem resolved itself? If the problem is important, you'll be able to restate it again."

Meh.

"Well, I read what you type. An impression takes shape as I read. Then instead of responding to your words, I respond to the impression I have of what you wrote.

How do you talk to people?"

I try not to talk "to" anyone. But with them.

"I don't purposefully make stuff up. I try to get a precise impression that's as devoid of bias as I can make it. Nonetheless, I am biased. So the resulting impression is most definitely contextualized by my mindset."

In what shade of grey would you like to have your biais. On the "making stuff up entirely" spectrum? Or a bit less extreme?

"I don't think so. Remember, it's what's in my heart that matters and not the words. If I responded to the mere words without contributing a heart reflection, such response would be much less valuable. You may think such a thing is better if the words are the kinds of words you like to see, but it would be a deception or a misdirection on your part. You'd be fooling yourself if you could get me to cooperate the way you described (just replying to the words without bothering with the core meaning of the message)."

Right. I'm only asking you to listen a bit more. I think. I'm not concerned if you don't want to but I won't spend more time on people who don't listen.

"Alright, so then if you have a significant disagreement, bring it up. I am fine with that. And if I get tired, I just take a break or a nap."

Not with you per se. I was thinking in general.

Maybe you should email him yourself? Or go to a book signing event? I don't know. I am not Sam Harris.

I don't think he needs to come to where I live to sign books. Folks are pretty un-religious where I'm at. So it wouldn't be a huge deal. Of course they have other mindsets but I doubt that Sam Harris' books are that obviously transcendent. Not having read any :-) of course

goldisheavy · May 29, 2011

No, this is not yin/yang. They never mix. They are within each other and transform into each other but they don't become one (because the one became two to start with, if I remember correctly) So it's a bit like that conversation we're having with Steve about how all-pervading consciousness "gets" to become conscious of it(self). Shiva and Shakti, whatever you want.

OK, so if the gray color is not a mix of yin and yang, then would you say the theory of yin and yang cannot explain the appearance of a gray color? If it can, then how does the theory of yin and yang explain something like color gray?

Yes, but are you as nice to look at ?

Some people think so. Some don't. As for how many belong to each group, I've never really had a chance to conduct a poll.

Nope, that was it. Happens all the time IME. This 'what I'm like' thing is probably not worth 2cts.

Are you in the market for something specific?

I try not to talk "to" anyone. But with them.

Meh.

Right. I'm only asking you to listen a bit more. I think. I'm not concerned if you don't want to but I won't spend more time on people who don't listen.

Meh.

I don't think he needs to come to where I live to sign books. Folks are pretty un-religious where I'm at. So it wouldn't be a huge deal. Of course they have other mindsets but I doubt that Sam Harris' books are that obviously transcendent. Not having read any :-) of course

:lol:

Todd · May 29, 2011

GIH-

Thank you for your message.

I have a couple questions.

Is intent what sees beliefs?

I ask because this is not my experience. In my experience, intent is a quality of that which sees beliefs. It is your prerogative to use whatever word you want for the mystery, but if we are going to choose one of its qualities, love seems to be closer to the actual mystery in my experience. I wouldn't really use that word for it either though. We might just be wired differently in this respect.

This likely plays into your description of seeing as "envisioning". Could you please elaborate on this process? In my experience I cannot find a strong sense of envisioning when I am seeing things clearly. There is no direction in such seeing. It is more like an explosion, but completely absent of force or direction. It has an almost magical quality about it. I may be understanding the word differently from how you are using it. This is distinct from the knowing, which underlies the seeing. The seeing encompasses the most basic level of form-- how things come to be and their nature as things. The knowing -- I'm not coming up with anything to describe that, but it feeds into the seeing. It is present before the seeing too.

I've never described that before. I hope you can do a better job with envisioning.

Now I'm going to shift topics a bit. If anything is important in our other disagreements and agreements, then they'll probably come up again.

How much of how we see this whole process is an artifact of how we happened to engage in it?

I suspect that the reason you see accessing true nature as something for near the end of the spiritual path is because that is how things happened for you, after a long period of contemplating beliefs. I could easily be wrong, since sometimes people realize that their path actually was pretty misguided in a lot of parts, and try to offer people shortcuts.

My experience was that I encountered true nature as a teenager with very little preparation, though there was a lot of intention to know and describe the essence of things. True nature made itself known in a semi-accidental pause in that activity.

Encountering true nature did not take seeing through many of my beliefs or becoming particularly coherent as a human being. All it took was a suspension of assumptions, coupled with a deep intention to know.

Was that some sort of end? Hardly. It was an introduction, and I had no idea what it was, or its significance. For all I knew, everyone goes through this. I assumed everyone goes through it and it was just another stop in general development. A kind've explosion of perception, to which the only natural response is awe. I still feel that this is the most proper viewpoint on this type of realization, though the response matures.

Had I had some context, I might have trusted it more. I didn't, so I kept questioning it, and i kept trying all the things that I saw around me. I kept trying techniques-- not necessarily spiritual techniques, since I didn't see a lot of that, but just day to day techniques in many different areas. The techniques would yield results short-term, but those results didn't really satisfy, and the longer term result was usually some form of stasis until I remembered the deeper movement. Often the deeper movement would manifest a technique, and I would try to grasp that and keep applying it, with the same result as exteriorly derived techniques.

Long period of trial and error (you're right. sometimes you've got to break a few eggs). In this period, my efforts were diluted by lack of clarity about what brings results, and eventually life just stopped me.

Enter more explicit cultivation, with similar technique/no-technique dynamic. I was catching on more to the value of no-technique (which is not really no-technique, but rather following the deeper movement) in my case, but still there was dilution.

Enter relatively clear teachings pointing to the value and validity of the initial experience that I had when I was 14 and the deeper movement that it revealed. Still, there was technique/no-technique dilution, but as I devoted longer and longer periods to no-technique and noted how clear the difference was between what was revealed in those periods vs. periods of technique, it became clearer that only one option was viable if my intention was for truth.

No-technique becomes clearer and clearer. Techniques can arise and I don't grab onto them nearly so much. They have their value, but always, the most important thing is their source. It is the dear friend, as you mentioned of the mind. Also, what no-technique can be has matured. It can be delusion, or sorrow, or pain, or confusion. It can be totally ordinary, prosaic, banal. It can be happiness, bliss, whatever.

I ask myself, if I had come upon your teachings somewhere in there, would it have helped me? I don't know. My guess is that it would not, unless you said something different to me. To me, the most valuable thing has been being thrown back on what I always had, questioning the ways that I grasped for support, and directing attention to the most essential qualities of being.

I see how your method works. It does work, if it is carried out with sincerity, if there is an honest drive. It is a trick though.

My method is also a trick. There is something that it reveals which I do not say, because I can't, and the near-misses are ugly and not helpful in most situations.

I find it a little strange to be talking about a method. I am not trying to teach anyone, and I don't even post much or talk about it with many people. I'm not writing for anyone else, but just doing what comes natural.

I find this interaction to be valuable, and not just as entertainment.

I did want to make a point after all this story telling.

Where does dogma come from?

There are a lot of answers. I'd like to get as close as possible to its inception, since if one could minimize such inception, then perhaps a lot of the dogma could be avoided.

I acknowledge that this is largely a futile task, since it isn't really up to one or two people. But the more light is shed on the process of dogma creation, the more likely that less of it will be created.

I think it boils down to generalizing from experience, without acknowledging the experience that the generalization comes from.

As an fictional example imagined from real life: you experience a process, whereby you become interested in the nature of your beliefs. You notice that they aren't really coherent, and that the things that you think you believe are not necessarily the things that you act on in stressful situations. You recognize that there are negative consequences to this, plus it is just really fascinating that such a thing is possible. Since your interest is honestly piqued, your attention naturally goes there. The process of exploration isn't all logical, especially since there are times where you honestly have no idea where the next piece might be, and what reveals the next piece is a kind of waiting coupled with an intent to know. This intent can be more obvious and intense, or just running in the background, more like an openness to new information/understanding. Over time layers upon layers are revealed. Along with this revelation, concrete changes in life become visible. The process by which revelation itself happens becomes of interest. Somewhere in there, perhaps after many years of such exploration, something pops, kind've like the bottom falling out. Some deep assumption is let go of, or even just suspended, and you see things from a radically altered perspective. Perhaps this happens a number of times, with different assumptions, or the same assumptions at different levels.

I don't really want to continue narrating from here, since I've gotten to the key point in the example, so I'll skip to the point where you are communicating with someone in an attempt to share this new perspective. It does not seem to be something that can be directly communicated, so the best you can do is to suggest that they have the experience for themselves, and you suggest some steps that they might take.

What would be more natural than to suggest that someone become interested in their beliefs, specifically paying attention to the areas in which they are not coherent? Why wouldn't you have suspicion of anyone who suggests that one can skip directly to inquiry into their deepest nature and have the same experience that you had after many years of contemplation? Especially when many people talk about this, without evidence of deep understanding.

If someone listens to you, then maybe they will get some benefit. Especially if they happen to be hooked up pretty much like you are, and the coherence or lack of coherence of their thoughts can inspire deep interest in them, such that such exploration can be undertaken for itself and with some degree of joy, even as difficulties are encountered. Effortless effort. Is this like the lifestyle that you mentioned?

There are other ways that your words can be of benefit for different people, even if they aren't just the thing for them. But there are also people for whom those words will not be of benefit. And yet you remain confident that your words are correct. As long as those people take your words as guidelines, then they are travelling a path that is longer than it needs to be, perhaps much longer, with all the attendant consequences.

There are many different paths. Do they all eventually deal with beliefs in some manner? Yes. But they all also do a lot of things. In my path, there was virtually no dealing with beliefs at first, but just a deep intention and a pause of assumptions. If a person has such an intention, then a very deep seeing is possible more or less immediately. What is revealed can become the basis of a very fruitful exploration. As much as any thing is revealed, the process by which such revelation happens also can be noticed and explored, given attention and allowed.

I know I was painting a very partial picture, and that you realize that it is a particular set of people for whom your teaching will resonate, as evidenced by the end of your message to Oolong Rabbit: "And yet some people need to move beyond the conventional understanding on the path of enlightenment. For those specific people being trapped within convention without seeing convention for what it is, is bad."

Not sure what to do about this. Teachings that are too balanced don't have much effect for a lot of people. Though I don't know. Sometimes a balanced teaching is all a person needs to let go of the teachings. Even the self-generated ones.

With hopes of clarity.

Birch · May 30, 2011

"OK, so if the gray color is not a mix of yin and yang, then would you say the theory of yin and yang cannot explain the appearance of a gray color? If it can, then how does the theory of yin and yang explain something like color gray?"

Depends where you apply the theory:-)

If you apply it to your visual perception that's one way, if you apply it to your own confusion of how grey could possibly be 'a colour' when it's 'obviously' a mix of black and white (is it?) that's another one.

I'm sure there are lots of other applications. Which is why I dig yin/yang :-) And wuxing (sp?) and ganying and all that stuff.

goldisheavy · May 30, 2011

GIH-

Thank you for your message.

I have a couple questions.

Is intent what sees beliefs?

Kind of. Think about it. You see what you want to see. Agree? Yes, what you observe, be it this computer screen here, or some subtle and very abstract object of consciousness such as a belief, is intentional.

Moreover, many beliefs are best observed in action. In other words, when you observe yourself act in a certain way is when you can more truly observe what you actually believe as opposed to what you profess to believe.

I find that sometimes there is a difference between what I profess to believe or what I sort of wished I believed, and what I actually believe. That difference is a disturbing one, and in my opinion, not seeing my beliefs clearly has made my life more difficult than it needs to be in some sense. Of course in another sense, everything is just as it should be, so there is no problem.

In particular experimenting inside lucid dreams can demonstrate very clearly how beliefs exist and operate in a way that we weren't aware of at first. This has been an essential process for me.

I ask because this is not my experience. In my experience, intent is a quality of that which sees beliefs.

I get it. It's obvious by how you talk.

It is your prerogative to use whatever word you want for the mystery, but if we are going to choose one of its qualities, love seems to be closer to the actual mystery in my experience. I wouldn't really use that word for it either though. We might just be wired differently in this respect.

This likely plays into your description of seeing as "envisioning". Could you please elaborate on this process? In my experience I cannot find a strong sense of envisioning when I am seeing things clearly.

Maybe you're confused. You think seeing clearly means filling your field of vision with objects that have sharp, crisp outlines. That could very well be seeing unclearly. Maybe seeing clearly is seeing everything muddy and washed out. When you look for clarity, you're looking for some kind of preferential vision, are you not?

If not, then you'll recognize there is ultimately no such thing as seeing things clearly. Everything is already as clear as it will ever be, in a sense. And yet, many of us are unhappy. Some of that unhappiness is necessary and we shouldn't get rid of it. But some of it, I think, is wasted or unnecessary unhappiness that we can do better without. To actually know what is what requires one to have a huge, very wide perspective.

This hugeness is of two kinds. One kind of hugeness is to get very very close to things and to see the details of operations. Another hugeness is to get very very far from things and to see the big picture. If you only see the big picture but not the minutia, or if you only see the minutia but not the big picture, then your vision is not yet mature. You have to see it all. Everything. From every level of magnification. From at least 2, or even 100 perspectives, simultaneously.

There is no direction in such seeing.

There is. All seeing is contextualized, and from the point of view of that context, it is indeed directional and intentional. But don't take my word for it. Just keep paying attention as you already have. Challenge yourself.

I've had an profound visionary experience long time ago when I've experienced nothing less than the Omniscience itself. I've seen all things unmade and remade. I was God. I saw it all and knew it all and there was nothing left for me to see or to know. And yet a friend I had at the time challenged me and questioned the meaning of my experience. He didn't demean anything or denigrate it. He just questioned it in an honest way. This is the best thing that happened to me. Why so? Because I've become infinitely more omniscient since then. I've exposed many more prejudices and biases on my part. I've exposed emotional attachments I didn't think I had. And so on. In other words, contemplation really opened my eyes in ways that the experience of omniscience alone could not.

It is then I realized that nothing is wasted. Nothing is completely wrong. Omniscience is not completely right. Our relative experience is not completely wrong or completely mundane. They illumine one another. This illumines that. That illumines this. There is interplay. All is valuable in terms of vision. Muddy vision is essential to clear seeing. Confusion is perfect knowledge. Perfect knowledge is confusion. Confusion is confusion. Perfect knowledge is perfect knowledge. I got this understanding only on the back of experience and contemplation, combined.

Now it's been some time, and I can honestly say that if I had to let go of my contemplation or of my experience, and I had to lose one, I'd choose to lose the experience of omniscience. Because contemplation over the long term is that much more powerful.

The so-called peak experiences are powerful and precious. If I can, I want it all. I don't want to have to discard something. But at the same time, worship of the peak experience is false, because it sells short what can be learned from the ordinary experience. (And in my book lucid dreaming is an ordinary experience that anyone can easily experience, if so desired, unlike Omniscience, which is not whatsoever easily experienced.)

It is more like an explosion, but completely absent of force or direction. It has an almost magical quality about it. I may be understanding the word differently from how you are using it. This is distinct from the knowing, which underlies the seeing. The seeing encompasses the most basic level of form-- how things come to be and their nature as things. The knowing -- I'm not coming up with anything to describe that, but it feeds into the seeing. It is present before the seeing too.

I've never described that before. I hope you can do a better job with envisioning.

Interesting that it is this conversation that prompts you to describe something you've never even tried to describe before. What do you think is the significance of that? Or perhaps you think it's all random?

Now I'm going to shift topics a bit. If anything is important in our other disagreements and agreements, then they'll probably come up again.

How much of how we see this whole process is an artifact of how we happened to engage in it?

Well, if we go with "my" theory of envisioning, then the answer is "a lot."

I suspect that the reason you see accessing true nature as something for near the end of the spiritual path is because that is how things happened for you, after a long period of contemplating beliefs. I could easily be wrong, since sometimes people realize that their path actually was pretty misguided in a lot of parts, and try to offer people shortcuts.

My experience was that I encountered true nature as a teenager with very little preparation, though there was a lot of intention to know and describe the essence of things. True nature made itself known in a semi-accidental pause in that activity.

I make a distinction between peak spiritual experiences and wisdom. It's possible to get started on the spiritual path thanks to a strong peak experience. It's not possible to get started on the spiritual path thanks to the perfection of wisdom.

Encountering true nature did not take seeing through many of my beliefs or becoming particularly coherent as a human being. All it took was a suspension of assumptions, coupled with a deep intention to know.

You probably got lucky that one time. I bet you can't repeat such experience at will. Am I right or wrong? I can't return to my state of omniscience voluntarily because I am voluntarily bound up here right now. When I experienced omniscience back then, I was lucky and not lucky at the same time. I'll try to describe both elements.

I was lucky because I had a period in life when I didn't have to worry about much. I was lucky because no one was blocking my meditation and contemplation efforts. I was lucky because if I wanted some teaching, I got it (Internet, book store, etc.). I was lucky because I didn't have a Guru who brainwashed me with dogma and tradition. I was lucky because my parents did not brainwash me pro- or con- spirituality and they didn't brainwash me into any religion. I was also lucky because I had no idea how much impact that which I wanted would have on me. So I had the strength and the courage of the naive. It's like a man bravely walking into fire for the first time, because the man has no idea of what the fire is like. So I was lucky to be ignorant. Ignorance is different from a true lack of prejudice because an ignorant man is indifferent on the account of not knowing any better. A truly unprejudiced man knows what to expect, understands the process, and still is not prejudiced despite that knowledge. So I kind of had a naive lack of prejudice born of ignorance.

But in which way was my experience not due to luck?

It was not luck because I intended my experience to happen and when it was ongoing, I was a willing participant. It was not luck because I've prepared myself for the experience by putting my mind in a helpful perspective, by certain kinds of meditation and so on.

After the experience one could say I understood everything there was to ever understand. At the same time, I didn't fully own my understanding at that time. The understanding wasn't my bitch. It was still in awe of it. I was still bending my knee to my understanding. I was still not able to see every kind of connection between the extraordinary and the ordinary. I could see some connections, but not every kind. I was on my way to becoming the Lord, but not quite Lord yet. It was kind of like a prince who's been in the throne room.

So peak experience is not at all useless, but contemplation is key. Peak experience is optional. Contemplation isn't. Peak experiences come and go. They have a start, middle and end. The fruit of contemplation is a new way to live, a new direction in life... it doesn't come and go. It's stable. And it is more mystical than the mystical, because ordinary mystical states exist in contradistinction to the non-mystical states. Like black against white. But the contemplative mystery includes everything into it. It's not black or white. It's not non-mystical or mystical. It's not anything specific and yet it is. See? It's vastly superior. It represents the ultimate flexibility of mind and true power and not just some pretty vision of beautiful things in a consumerist fashion where you are the helpless consumer of a pretty vision.

Was that some sort of end? Hardly. It was an introduction, and I had no idea what it was, or its significance. For all I knew, everyone goes through this. I assumed everyone goes through it and it was just another stop in general development. A kind've explosion of perception, to which the only natural response is awe. I still feel that this is the most proper viewpoint on this type of realization, though the response matures.

Had I had some context, I might have trusted it more. I didn't, so I kept questioning it, and i kept trying all the things that I saw around me. I kept trying techniques-- not necessarily spiritual techniques, since I didn't see a lot of that, but just day to day techniques in many different areas. The techniques would yield results short-term, but those results didn't really satisfy, and the longer term result was usually some form of stasis until I remembered the deeper movement. Often the deeper movement would manifest a technique, and I would try to grasp that and keep applying it, with the same result as exteriorly derived techniques.

Long period of trial and error (you're right. sometimes you've got to break a few eggs). In this period, my efforts were diluted by lack of clarity about what brings results, and eventually life just stopped me.

Enter more explicit cultivation, with similar technique/no-technique dynamic. I was catching on more to the value of no-technique (which is not really no-technique, but rather following the deeper movement) in my case, but still there was dilution.

Yes, true contemplation is not a technique. It is truly alive and it cannot be predicted. It's not dead or routine. If your thinking is completely directed by some kind of template, then it has less value because it's not your thinking. It's not sincere.

Contemplation is sincere, deep and calm meditative thinking.

Enter relatively clear teachings pointing to the value and validity of the initial experience that I had when I was 14 and the deeper movement that it revealed. Still, there was technique/no-technique dilution, but as I devoted longer and longer periods to no-technique and noted how clear the difference was between what was revealed in those periods vs. periods of technique, it became clearer that only one option was viable if my intention was for truth.

No-technique becomes clearer and clearer. Techniques can arise and I don't grab onto them nearly so much. They have their value, but always, the most important thing is their source. It is the dear friend, as you mentioned of the mind. Also, what no-technique can be has matured. It can be delusion, or sorrow, or pain, or confusion. It can be totally ordinary, prosaic, banal. It can be happiness, bliss, whatever.

I ask myself, if I had come upon your teachings somewhere in there, would it have helped me?

Are they helping you now? If yes, good. If not, do you need help? If not, good. If yes, what kind of help are you looking for?

I don't know. My guess is that it would not, unless you said something different to me. To me, the most valuable thing has been being thrown back on what I always had, questioning the ways that I grasped for support, and directing attention to the most essential qualities of being.

Being thrown back on what you always had... you mean like when I ask you to look at the beliefs you always had?

I see how your method works. It does work, if it is carried out with sincerity, if there is an honest drive. It is a trick though.

My method is also a trick. There is something that it reveals which I do not say, because I can't, and the near-misses are ugly and not helpful in most situations.

Maybe you shouldn't try to be so perfect? What we say is not supposed to be used for the purpose of brainwashing. It's just food for thought. This is why I am not starting a religion now, when I really have everything I need to start one. I don't want to brainwash people. I think it's enough to share your thoughts and then let people use that expression however they find beneficial.

I find it a little strange to be talking about a method. I am not trying to teach anyone, and I don't even post much or talk about it with many people. I'm not writing for anyone else, but just doing what comes natural.

So if you were writing for someone else, that would be unnatural? Maybe. Maybe not.

I find this interaction to be valuable, and not just as entertainment.

I did want to make a point after all this story telling.

Where does dogma come from?

From fear and laziness. Fear to disagree. Fear to take an untrodden path. Fear to be critical of commonly accepted ideas. And laziness in the sense that if something works in a crappy way, but it still works, why fix it? Why fix something today if you can fix it tomorrow? These I think are huge driving factors in dogma adoption. Dogma doesn't require thinking. Dogma just requires agreement and following.

There are a lot of answers. I'd like to get as close as possible to its inception, since if one could minimize such inception, then perhaps a lot of the dogma could be avoided.

I acknowledge that this is largely a futile task, since it isn't really up to one or two people. But the more light is shed on the process of dogma creation, the more likely that less of it will be created.

I think it boils down to generalizing from experience, without acknowledging the experience that the generalization comes from.

As an fictional example imagined from real life: you experience a process, whereby you become interested in the nature of your beliefs. You notice that they aren't really coherent, and that the things that you think you believe are not necessarily the things that you act on in stressful situations. You recognize that there are negative consequences to this, plus it is just really fascinating that such a thing is possible. Since your interest is honestly piqued, your attention naturally goes there. The process of exploration isn't all logical, especially since there are times where you honestly have no idea where the next piece might be, and what reveals the next piece is a kind of waiting coupled with an intent to know. This intent can be more obvious and intense, or just running in the background, more like an openness to new information/understanding. Over time layers upon layers are revealed. Along with this revelation, concrete changes in life become visible. The process by which revelation itself happens becomes of interest. Somewhere in there, perhaps after many years of such exploration, something pops, kind've like the bottom falling out. Some deep assumption is let go of, or even just suspended, and you see things from a radically altered perspective. Perhaps this happens a number of times, with different assumptions, or the same assumptions at different levels.

I don't really want to continue narrating from here, since I've gotten to the key point in the example, so I'll skip to the point where you are communicating with someone in an attempt to share this new perspective. It does not seem to be something that can be directly communicated, so the best you can do is to suggest that they have the experience for themselves, and you suggest some steps that they might take.

What would be more natural than to suggest that someone become interested in their beliefs, specifically paying attention to the areas in which they are not coherent? Why wouldn't you have suspicion of anyone who suggests that one can skip directly to inquiry into their deepest nature and have the same experience that you had after many years of contemplation? Especially when many people talk about this, without evidence of deep understanding.

If someone listens to you, then maybe they will get some benefit. Especially if they happen to be hooked up pretty much like you are, and the coherence or lack of coherence of their thoughts can inspire deep interest in them, such that such exploration can be undertaken for itself and with some degree of joy, even as difficulties are encountered. Effortless effort. Is this like the lifestyle that you mentioned?

Yes.

There are other ways that your words can be of benefit for different people, even if they aren't just the thing for them. But there are also people for whom those words will not be of benefit. And yet you remain confident that your words are correct. As long as those people take your words as guidelines, then they are travelling a path that is longer than it needs to be, perhaps much longer, with all the attendant consequences.

There are many different paths. Do they all eventually deal with beliefs in some manner? Yes. But they all also do a lot of things. In my path, there was virtually no dealing with beliefs at first, but just a deep intention and a pause of assumptions. If a person has such an intention, then a very deep seeing is possible more or less immediately. What is revealed can become the basis of a very fruitful exploration. As much as any thing is revealed, the process by which such revelation happens also can be noticed and explored, given attention and allowed.

I know I was painting a very partial picture, and that you realize that it is a particular set of people for whom your teaching will resonate, as evidenced by the end of your message to Oolong Rabbit: "And yet some people need to move beyond the conventional understanding on the path of enlightenment. For those specific people being trapped within convention without seeing convention for what it is, is bad."

Not sure what to do about this. Teachings that are too balanced don't have much effect for a lot of people. Though I don't know. Sometimes a balanced teaching is all a person needs to let go of the teachings. Even the self-generated ones.

With hopes of clarity.

Well, it's not often what I talk about gets labeled as "too balanced." My approach is subversive in its total meaning. Only superficially it may not look that way. To question something, anything, is a subversive act. In fact to even look at something, anything, is an act of subversion. You're supposed (who supposes this?) to be blind and ignorant and just do what you are told.

Edited May 30, 2011 by goldisheavy

goldisheavy · May 30, 2011

"OK, so if the gray color is not a mix of yin and yang, then would you say the theory of yin and yang cannot explain the appearance of a gray color? If it can, then how does the theory of yin and yang explain something like color gray?"

Depends where you apply the theory:-)

If you apply it to your visual perception that's one way, if you apply it to your own confusion of how grey could possibly be 'a colour' when it's 'obviously' a mix of black and white (is it?) that's another one.

I'm sure there are lots of other applications. Which is why I dig yin/yang :-) And wuxing (sp?) and ganying and all that stuff.

Where does red come from?

Birch · May 30, 2011

What do you mean "where"?

What is magic? How does magic work?

Recommended Posts

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites