Are all the contents of awareness intentional?

[goldisheavy]

As for awareness being flavored by intent, this idea arises from a simple consideration. Let's say I close my eyes. This results in a visual field appearing one way. Then let's say I open my eyes, this results in a change of appearances. Let's say I turn my head to the left and then turn it to the right. Again, visual field changes corresponding to intent. That's one way one can begin this contemplation. Then you can see if perhaps some mystical ways of perception are able to side-step this principle. In my experience the answer ends up being, no. At any time whatever appears is supported by intent.

 

So at any point, whatever we observe, is always partial, it's always intentional on some level.

 

The trouble with this caricature of an explanation is that intent is able to have depth. So for example, you can have a habitual pattern that plays itself out on autopilot. It seems that such habitual patterns are unintentional, because you don't have to struggle or do something specific to make them be the way they are. At the same time, I say they are intentional, because habits rely on non-interference. If you begin to meddle in some habit, you may eventually either change that habit or dissolve it. And how hard various habits are to change is a spectrum or a continuum that goes from easy to arbitrarily hard. So just because ultimately everything might be intentional, that doesn't mean it's easy or practical to change some deeply ingrained patterns in two weeks or 10 years (habits, psychic inertia, etc.).

 

So when I say "depth" I mean that some things are intended lightly, superficially, and those are easy to change. Other things are intended deeply to the point of being almost unconscious, and can be hard to change.

 

If anyone wonders why this is relevant, I believe that some of us seek to transform habitual appearance patterns (the contents of awareness) in our practice, rather than say only reduce suffering, but leave all the habitual appearance patterns intact. So if you agree that habitual appearance patterns are intentional, it opens a clear avenue for practice for those who seek to reshape some or all habitual appearance patterns.

 

I'm interested in your opinions and/or disagreements.

Edited April 21, 2012 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

Interesting, I was just mentionng this in another thread.

In meditation the other day, i realised there was kind of a 'background noise' of unintelligible sounds. At one point I began to recognise words coming out of it (I was just choosing to pick some things out and then others) and then actual sentences. When I realised what I was doing I stopped and let it become garbled again and fade into nothing I could hear any more.

 

I guess previously I might have let the sentences become actual things to think about.

 

Anyway, it's one thing to do this in meditation, quite another the rest of the time. And I don't always do it the rest of the time. I'm too lazy I think.

[goldisheavy]

Interesting, I was just mentionng this in another thread.

In meditation the other day, i realised there was kind of a 'background noise' of unintelligible sounds. At one point I began to recognise words coming out of it (I was just choosing to pick some things out and then others) and then actual sentences. When I realised what I was doing I stopped and let it become garbled again and fade into nothing I could hear any more.

 

I guess previously I might have let the sentences become actual things to think about.

 

Anyway, it's one thing to do this in meditation, quite another the rest of the time. And I don't always do it the rest of the time. I'm too lazy I think.

 

Interesting! Sometimes I notice tiny vibrations or ever-so-slight shimmer in my visual field. When I focus on that shimmer, I begin seeing white smoke billowing around in ways that seem to defy physics (as in, if this was "real" vapor, it couldn't move in these ways, curling into itself at times, which makes little sense from a physicalist POV). I believe this is a very similar phenomenon to what you're describing, except this one happens in the visual field instead of the audio field.

 

Luckily this doesn't happen unless I specifically look for it. I think it would be a bit annoying if white vapor or smoke started to show up in random places.

[z00se]

I don't think so.

 

A simple example of how there is awareness without intent is if you are typing on your computer and i sneak up behind you and slap you around the head. Now you are aware of the slap but you didn't use your intent at all, you used your intent to be aware of what you were typing (supposing you didn't hear me and knew nothing up until you felt the slap).

What do you think?

 

Another example, i can run and feel like i have no intent what so ever. Maybe there is a tiny part if i really analize it but at the time it feels like there is none. I just feel like running, i run at whatever speed my body wants to and watch it. I see myself just turn off my normal route, turn down streets and little alleys, cross over roads at specific, yet unconventional points, but no idea why it was at that particular point, but i giggle to myself and think what a good place to cross! I don't know where i'm going i just turn down streets willy nilly, like a magnet is pulling me that way. The more i follow it the more strongly it pulls me. Sure i have to use intent to bring my awareness back every now and then to look down and make sure i'm not going to trip over anything or run into anything but when i get back onto the path and the coast looks clear i can have no intent and just watch myself again.

 

So i didn't have intent with this experience to direct my awareness, rather my awareness was attracted by what was new, the new scenery, the new places, the new feelings. I didn't use intent at all because i hadn't experienced any of it before so i wouldn't know where to put my awareness - rather it just flooded IN to me. I didn't even intend to see the new stuff my head just turned this way and that. Infact i had to use intent to make sure i didn't fall over and trip, but i wasn't using intent alot of the time.

[goldisheavy]

I don't think so.

 

A simple example of how there is awareness without intent is if you are typing on your computer and i sneak up behind you and slap you around the head. Now you are aware of the slap but you didn't use your intent at all, you used your intent to be aware of what you were typing (supposing you didn't hear me and knew nothing up until you felt the slap).

What do you think?

 

The intensity of the slap will vary depending on how absorbed I am by whatever is happening on the computer. If I am very absorbed, the slap will be less painful and less noticeable. If I am distracted, the slap will feel sharper and more painful.

 

Another example, i can run and feel like i have no intent what so ever. Maybe there is a tiny part if i really analize it but at the time it feels like there is none. I just feel like running, i run at whatever speed my body wants to and watch it. I see myself just turn off my normal route, turn down streets and little alleys, cross over roads at specific, yet unconventional points, but no idea why it was at that particular point, but i giggle to myself and think what a good place to cross! I don't know where i'm going i just turn down streets willy nilly, like a magnet is pulling me that way. The more i follow it the more strongly it pulls me. Sure i have to use intent to bring my awareness back every now and then to look down and make sure i'm not going to trip over anything or run into anything but when i get back onto the path and the coast looks clear i can have no intent and just watch myself again.

 

Can't you abandon this exercise at any point?

 

So i didn't have intent with this experience to direct my awareness, rather my awareness was attracted by what was new, the new scenery, the new places, the new feelings.

 

You didn't push your awareness, but you still permitted it to move in that direction whereas you could have blocked that experience had you so intended.

 

Intent doesn't have to feel like force, or pushing. It can be relaxed. It can be abstract (rather than concrete and specific). It can be mystical (as opposed to mundane).

 

What do you think?

[Seth Ananda]

Very Interesting topic

I have recently been contemplating the habitual nature nature of perception or seeing, and how it stops us from 'seeing' further - As in acausal or non ordinary ways.

 

It would seem to me that to relax ones Intent to see habitually, and thus allowing non ordinary perceptions to take place, would also be an act of Intent...

 

Unfortunately I have found very little on this subject in the various traditions that i have researched.

 

The few are, Castaneda's toltec teachings which have a massive amount on learning to control ones perception filters. [assemblage point]

 

Tiny elements in the western Occult teachings, on evocation to physical appearance, and the stress that places on habitual or ordinary patterns of seeing. {in my opinion the real reason to do such practices...}

 

And a Buddhist monk talking about thogal, and although he didn't describe the practice, he did talk about how it is a way to drop any habitual seeing patterns, which is what allows the tigles and gods and demons and... to appear in front of you...

 

 

I'm not sure what questions most interest me here...?

 

I think I would love to hear peoples musings on these subjects...

 

Gold, and anyone, do you think there is a purpose for awareness having or being colored by Intent?

And what are the limits found or the greatest potential, for gaining full control over ones way of 'seeing'...

And what ways have people found that let them gain acausal or non ordinary perceptions?

 

And how can this be used to further our steps to enlightenment?

 

 

Thanks!

 

Seth.

[JustARandomPanda]

Interesting, I was just mentionng this in another thread.

In meditation the other day, i realised there was kind of a 'background noise' of unintelligible sounds. At one point I began to recognise words coming out of it (I was just choosing to pick some things out and then others) and then actual sentences. When I realised what I was doing I stopped and let it become garbled again and fade into nothing I could hear any more.

 

Wow! This happens to me too! I think I read somewhere once a year or two ago from Ralis on this. He said if you practice this long enough eventually you become aware what's in your subconscious.

[Seth Ananda]

Zoose, Castenada would say {which doesn't necessarily mean its true} that just seeing the world we see is a powerful act of intent.

 

We have locked our perceptions down on one thin wave length, and every perception within it, such as being slapped or aimless jogging, is totally conditioned to be perceived in certain ways, that suit or work with the underlying intent to see the world in the way we do...

[Seth Ananda]

As I am thinking about it, it seems to me that awareness, being untouched in some way by what it perceives, has the capacity to adjust to receive any perception whatsoever.

 

Does this mean we have the potential to one day travel as we see fit through infinity, consciously selecting what ever world/perception that seems fit?

 

I Imagine that if this is a possibility, we would have to dissolve all attachment or aversion to any way of perceiving whatsoever?

 

How would we accomplish this?

[Seth Ananda]

Wow! This happens to me too! I think I read somewhere once a year or two ago from Ralis on this. He said if you practice this long enough eventually you become aware what's in your subconscious.

Cool! And I agree, that will totally open up the unconscious and loosen habitual Ideas of self, but what about acausal perceptions, leaving the causal world all together?

 

I just realized, I'm typing like a maniac. I haven't been this excited by a thread in yonks...

[Fū Yue]

I agree. We see what we want to see, to a degree that is almost disturbing IMO.

 

For instance, I was sitting outside meditating next to this little tree I've got in my front yard earlier today. The more I relaxed, the more the grass and the earth and the tree slowly became less tree-like and earthy and more like a fractalline pattern of greenish gold light, which was breathing. It didn't seem wierd at the time, even when it started dissolving into a rainbow mirage. Then a slime tried climbing on my leg, and that was the end of that.

 

The thought that stuck with me afterwards was that what I was seeing was not really different, before or during, to what I'm seeing right now. We have a real stranglehold on this geometric technicolor slideshow, I think.

[Seth Ananda]

I agree. We see what we want to see, to a degree that is almost disturbing IMO.

 

For instance, I was sitting outside meditating next to this little tree I've got in my front yard earlier today. The more I relaxed, the more the grass and the earth and the tree slowly became less tree-like and earthy and more like a fractalline pattern of greenish gold light, which was breathing. It didn't seem wierd at the time, even when it started dissolving into a rainbow mirage. Then a slime tried climbing on my leg, and that was the end of that.

 

The thought that stuck with me afterwards was that what I was seeing was not really different, before or during, to what I'm seeing right now. We have a real stranglehold on this geometric technicolor slideshow, I think.

Fantastic!

What was the slime like?

[Fū Yue]

Fantastic!

What was the slime like?

 

A brown grey monstrosity.

 

And as to your inquiry about traveling through infinite worlds. I have a hunch (backed by some experiences) that we are indeed doing just that, on a day-to-day basis. We've chosen this experience specifically so that we could re-discover the 'magic' of ordinariness.

[goldisheavy]

Very Interesting topic

I have recently been contemplating the habitual nature nature of perception or seeing, and how it stops us from 'seeing' further - As in acausal or non ordinary ways.

 

I would agree with non-ordinary before I will agree with acausal. I might agree with the acausal label too, but I want to know what exactly do you mean by causal (and thus, what is acausal) before I decide.

 

It would seem to me that to relax ones Intent to see habitually, and thus allowing non ordinary perceptions to take place, would also be an act of Intent...

 

If we look at intent along the poles of tension and relaxation, I find that:

 

tension: structures (partitions, organizes, establishes clear relations), makes patterns more rigid

 

relaxation: de-structures (makes delineations more questionable and sometimes they might disappear altogether, reduces organization, relations become unclear), makes patterns more flexible up to the point of patterns disappearing from perception altogether

 

These directions are very abstract, and I've been inspired to see it that way by investigating in part how my muscles work. In particular I noticed that relaxation is an intentional state -- it is not a falling away of intent. Because if intent fell away during relaxation, how would it return during subsequent tension? So it's obvious to me that intent can never be discarded. It can be changed but not discarded. In fact, when we do discard things in life, every such act is itself intentional.

 

At the same time, lots and lots of things happen in life that ordinarily we feel are not a result of our intent. For example, the sky is above and the Earth is below. I feel like no matter what I want, this is the case. On Monday it's the case. On Tuesday it's again the case. 2 years later it's the case. I am not aware of placing the Earth below and the sky above and this situation seems to maintain itself despite anything I intend, at least upon superficial examination. Such examples are countless, and this is the main reason why people believe in substance to begin with: it is these stable recurring patterns that give people the idea that something, namely substance, is propping up and legitimizing the patterns.

 

But there are problems with this way of thinking. For one, in lucid dreams all the same patterns often assert themselves, and they can even be hard to break even when you know you are dreaming. I've had dreams where I was perfectly aware I was dreaming, and even then, it would still take me extraordinary effort to fly. So what does this tell me?

 

First of all, we are more relaxed in dreams, thus our intent has more freedom in a dream. But the patterns are a big deal, and they manifest themselves in dreams and sometimes even in visionary experiences too. They seem to be deep and are not subject to trivial meddling.

 

Knowing that one is dreaming helps tremendously to act contrary to patterns. Knowing that acting contrary to the pattern is possible, this helps tremendously. Knowing that you'll soon wake up, and there will be no long-term consequence is helpful tremendously. This removes the fear of screw ups. If we start playing this way while awake, there is a fear that we might permanently screw something up, and there is no "waking up in the next few hours, and resetting everything back to normal" in that case... or at least, that's what the fear tells me. When I am saying "we" I really mean myself, but also anyone who feels similar to me. If it's just me and I am wasting a "we", please forgive me. Dreams can be 100% as visceral and as real as waking experience. I've verified this for myself numerous times.

 

Secondly, some patterns in waking experience are subject to meddling. An obvious example is feeling cold or hot. If you feel hot, you can make yourself feel colder by intending it (either nakedly, or with the help of a visualization), and if you feel cold, you can make yourself hotter the same way.

 

Another aspect of intentionality is low-to-high order aspect. Here's what I mean by it. When we are walking, do we micromanage what our feet do? Usually not. Right? You just intend to walk forward, and you walk forward. Normally we don't worry where to place each foot. That would be too micromanage-y. But is it possible to become aware in a precise way where each foot is placed and to start controlling each and every step? Yes, that's possible too. So controlling walking step by step is something I would say is a lower order intent. It's more specific and more concrete. Controlling walking purely by direction and speed, without worrying about steps, is what I would call a higher order intent. It's higher in a relative sense. And all intents can be arranged on a scale of low to high order. Since high order intentions are less specific, the details of their workings out depend on preexisting habits it seems, unless the intent is specifically aimed at dissolving such habits or otherwise meddling with the habitual patterns. This dimension is orthogonal to tension and relaxation, but it's easier to engage in a higher order intentions when relaxed.

 

So one can be tense and engaged in a higher order intent as well as in a lower order intent.

 

And one can be relaxed and again engage in low and high order intentions. That's why I say these dimensions are orthogonal.

 

 

 

Unfortunately I have found very little on this subject in the various traditions that i have researched.

 

The few are, Castaneda's toltec teachings which have a massive amount on learning to control ones perception filters. [assemblage point]

 

Tiny elements in the western Occult teachings, on evocation to physical appearance, and the stress that places on habitual or ordinary patterns of seeing. {in my opinion the real reason to do such practices...}

 

And a Buddhist monk talking about thogal, and although he didn't describe the practice, he did talk about how it is a way to drop any habitual seeing patterns, which is what allows the tigles and gods and demons and... to appear in front of you...

 

Yes. I've read about this. Maybe I'll get a chance to dig up something about this. Based on my vague memory, thigles appear as visionary bubbles amidst ordinary seeing. The bubbles are filled with fantastic visions. Eventually they expand and mix with the ordinary seeing. The teaching I've read states that these bubbles should appear spontaneously based on trekcho and other prior practices. But sometimes they don't. In that case there are exercises to force (cajole, if you will) them to appear, such as putting pressure on eyeballs, or staring into space without blinking, while ignoring eye dryness or excessive eye watering, etc. So that's interesting in and of itself. This tells me these experiences are highly individual, depending on each person's mentality. I also believe I read to "mix one's mind with the matter of the external world." That's a rather crude instruction, but basically to me it means to stop seeing the external world as something that's outside mind.

 

Because the above is from my memory, I wouldn't overly rely on it. I'm just putting it out there to promote investigation. I'll try to find the book where this is mentioned. I believe it's from the Bon tradition.

 

I'm not sure what questions most interest me here...?

 

I think I would love to hear peoples musings on these subjects...

 

Gold, and anyone, do you think there is a purpose for awareness having or being colored by Intent?

And what are the limits found or the greatest potential, for gaining full control over ones way of 'seeing'...

 

I think the limits are obvious, since we live with them every day.

 

The potential is also pretty obvious... it is essentially limitless experience, similar to what's described in Yoga Sutras of Patanjali or in the Suttas dedicated to listing fruits of contemplative life.

 

And what ways have people found that let them gain acausal or non ordinary perceptions?

 

I think a good way is to first investigate your waking perception. In parallel, try to achieve lucid dreaming, and investigate the world of lucid dreams. Lucid dreams are more flexible, or even much more flexible, so try things and see what happens. Resolve both investigations against one another, because after all, you're investigating one single sphere of mind. I think one should resolve what one finds in lucid dreams against what one finds in waking experience.

 

And how can this be used to further our steps to enlightenment?

 

Well, it depends on what you mean by enlightenment, right? If your definition includes tolerance of the inconceivability of all phenomena, then gradually practicing magic is pretty much the only way I know of to achieve such tolerance.

 

That's just one way to answer this. I can answer this in many different ways.

[goldisheavy]

I found the book. It's called "Heart Drops of Dharmakaya." If there is interest, I can try typing up the chapter on Togel (that's how they spell it). It's relatively long and it involves a lot of typing, so think about it. I suggest all interested parties buy that book.

Edited April 21, 2012 by goldisheavy

[JustARandomPanda]

I found the book. It's called "Heart Drops of Dharmakaya." If there is interest, I can try typing up the chapter on Togel (that's how they spell it). It's relatively long and it involves a lot of typing, so think about it. I suggest all interested parties buy that book.

 

I would be interested GiH! I've actually mulled over the idea of trying to get my library to try to get that book. I've heard a lot of people recommend it.

[goldisheavy]

I would be interested GiH! I've actually mulled over the idea of trying to get my library to try to get that book. I've heard a lot of people recommend it.

 

Alright. I'll get to it. But pls don't expect results too soon. I'll type it up into a text file first, then I'll try to post it here as posts.

 

Personally, I highly recommend that book (thanks for the link, btw). Why? It's one of the very few books that talks relatively openly about Dzogchen practices. Bonpos are more generous, I think, than the Buddhists. I appreciate it. They give very simple, intuitive explanations for a lot of things. It's not written in a convoluted language. But like with all books, I always urge people use their own heads too. I don't agree with everything it says (but then again, there is no mystery tradition I am aware of that I summarily agree with 100%).

[Sunya]

I have the book in PDF... but really there's no point in practicing thogal until you've mastered trekcho (which means being able to rest in rigpa constantly)

[Seth Ananda]

I would agree with non-ordinary before I will agree with acausal. I might agree with the acausal label too, but I want to know what exactly do you mean by causal (and thus, what is acausal) before I decide.

I consider the ordinary world and perceptions causal, in that there is a very clear and linear set of causes/effect steps, in a chronological order leading up to each event.

 

The Non ordinary however... hmm, and the difficulty here is that there are obviously cause effect relationships in some non ordinary experience, but there are also non linear, non chronological, events, experiences and perceptions, non euclidean geometries, impossible colors... The range of experiences that come from a place beyond {normal or known} cause and effect relationships... A place where 1 + 1 does not equal 2....

 

 

If we look at intent along the poles of tension and relaxation, I find that:

 

tension: structures (partitions, organizes, establishes clear relations), makes patterns more rigid

 

relaxation: de-structures (makes delineations more questionable and sometimes they might disappear altogether, reduces organization, relations become unclear), makes patterns more flexible up to the point of patterns disappearing from perception altogether

 

These directions are very abstract, and I've been inspired to see it that way by investigating in part how my muscles work. In particular I noticed that relaxation is an intentional state -- it is not a falling away of intent. Because if intent fell away during relaxation, how would it return during subsequent tension? So it's obvious to me that intent can never be discarded. It can be changed but not discarded. In fact, when we do discard things in life, every such act is itself intentional.

 

I agree very much here. Its one reason I can't wholly buy the Nondual notion of non-doership and awareness as totally passively Inert.

Intention is the other half of surrender...

 

At the same time, lots and lots of things happen in life that ordinarily we feel are not a result of our intent. For example, the sky is above and the Earth is below. I feel like no matter what I want, this is the case. On Monday it's the case. On Tuesday it's again the case. 2 years later it's the case. I am not aware of placing the Earth below and the sky above and this situation seems to maintain itself despite anything I intend, at least upon superficial examination. Such examples are countless, and this is the main reason why people believe in substance to begin with: it is these stable recurring patterns that give people the idea that something, namely substance, is propping up and legitimizing the patterns.

 

But there are problems with this way of thinking. For one, in lucid dreams all the same patterns often assert themselves, and they can even be hard to break even when you know you are dreaming. I've had dreams where I was perfectly aware I was dreaming, and even then, it would still take me extraordinary effort to fly. So what does this tell me?

 

First of all, we are more relaxed in dreams, thus our intent has more freedom in a dream. But the patterns are a big deal, and they manifest themselves in dreams and sometimes even in visionary experiences too. They seem to be deep and are not subject to trivial meddling.

 

That makes sense, and makes me think of the term 'skillful means'. There are better and worse ways to start loosening or breaking down the constructs...

 

Knowing that one is dreaming helps tremendously to act contrary to patterns. Knowing that acting contrary to the pattern is possible, this helps tremendously. Knowing that you'll soon wake up, and there will be no long-term consequence is helpful tremendously. This removes the fear of screw ups. If we start playing this way while awake, there is a fear that we might permanently screw something up, and there is no "waking up in the next few hours, and resetting everything back to normal" in that case... or at least, that's what the fear tells me. When I am saying "we" I really mean myself, but also anyone who feels similar to me. If it's just me and I am wasting a "we", please forgive me. Dreams can be 100% as visceral and as real as waking experience. I've verified this for myself numerous times.

 

I am not quite sure i understand 'what' you are afraid of screwing up? But I understand the dreaming thing. I also like contemplating the dreamlike nature of the world, alot. It seems to deprive the world of its 'hard' sense of reality...

 

Yes. I've read about this. Maybe I'll get a chance to dig up something about this. Based on my vague memory, thigles appear as visionary bubbles amidst ordinary seeing. The bubbles are filled with fantastic visions. Eventually they expand and mix with the ordinary seeing. The teaching I've read states that these bubbles should appear spontaneously based on trekcho and other prior practices. But sometimes they don't. In that case there are exercises to force (cajole, if you will) them to appear, such as putting pressure on eyeballs, or staring into space without blinking, while ignoring eye dryness or excessive eye watering, etc. So that's interesting in and of itself. This tells me these experiences are highly individual, depending on each person's mentality. I also believe I read to "mix one's mind with the matter of the external world." That's a rather crude instruction, but basically to me it means to stop seeing the external world as something that's outside mind.

 

Because the above is from my memory, I wouldn't overly rely on it. I'm just putting it out there to promote investigation. I'll try to find the book where this is mentioned. I believe it's from the Bon tradition.

Thats the jist of what i have heard about it as well. And that thogal leads to rainbow body. I cant help wondering here about Don Juan [allegedly hehe] talking about becoming pure energy by moving the assemblage point. Allowing ones perception to change completely...

 

I think the limits are obvious, since we live with them every day.

 

To me that is the limits of ordinary perception, but what do you think mastery can't do?

 

The potential is also pretty obvious... it is essentially limitless experience, similar to what's described in Yoga Sutras of Patanjali or in the Suttas dedicated to listing fruits of contemplative life.

Very cool...

 

 

 

I think a good way is to first investigate your waking perception. In parallel, try to achieve lucid dreaming, and investigate the world of lucid dreams. Lucid dreams are more flexible, or even much more flexible, so try things and see what happens. Resolve both investigations against one another, because after all, you're investigating one single sphere of mind. I think one should resolve what one finds in lucid dreams against what one finds in waking experience.

Nice advice thanks! Its been a while since I explored lucid land.

 

Well, it depends on what you mean by enlightenment, right? If your definition includes tolerance of the inconceivability of all phenomena, then gradually practicing magic is pretty much the only way I know of to achieve such tolerance.

 

It seems that way to me as well. I certainly don't think of enlightenment as being a non dual couch potato like Ramana... To me it seems like they have just replaced one set of constructs with another. Upgraded the prison cell so to speak.

Even though I embraced many Buddhist and other perception bending Idea systems, i refused to give up my magickal and sorcereric practices...

I also find it sad that most Magick groups seem so entrenched in heavy materialism, cultish slavery or religiosity, rather than using it in all the wonderful expanding ways it can be used...

i already have Heart drops myself but what good resources have you found on the subject of Magick?

 

And Thanks. Seth Ananda.

[goldisheavy]

i already have Heart drops myself but what good resources have you found on the subject of Magick?

 

It's hard to think of something specific. Magick is an art of non-ordinary intentions. Intent by definition always produces result. It has to be sincere. And besides that, it must be congruent with beliefs. You cannot intend something that's contrary to what you believe is possible or sensical.

 

Eliminating misconceptions about intent is important. For example, some people think intent is actually a series of discrete intentions. Is that so? Examine this closely. When I examine this for myself I find directly that my intent can only be broken into individual intentions as approximations, but not in truth. In truth intent is one flow. It has no beginning, and no end. It changes smoothly. As it changes, no real boundaries can be discerned, such that I cannot say when some old intent stops and a new one begins. Another thing one should gain confidence in is that one can't drop intent. Dropping is itself intentional, so dropping something means exercising intent. This is conducive to calm and confidence.

 

Then one should consider stability. Where does stability come from? Initially most people think that stability is an external quality supported by substance. So, for example, a mountain is stable because it's made of substance, and that substance just sits there. This ability to just sit there is a natural property of stability of substance. Or so it is thought. From this POV, intent is always seen as disruptive, unstable, unreliable, shifty, etc. This can lead to fear if you want a measure of stability in addition to a measure of change. This means you have to internalize stability. Realize that stability is actually an internal quality of intent. That intent has depth. At a deep end it's very stable, slow, abstract and high order. At the shallow end it's fast, concrete and low order. By embracing the deep end as nothing other than yourself, you can stop being scared of your own intent. In other words, you won't have to think that by exercising your intent in a magickal way you'll turn the whole world into meaningless chaos.

 

Notice something? I am eliminating obstacles. Obstacles are simply objections. They are like, "But if I use magick all the time, the world will become unglued and it will all be fucked." If you can't answer this objection, you go nowhere. You are stuck. Either you have to become OK with this fast chaos, or you have to integrate stability back into your intent (or both).

 

So the whole practice is to try doing what you want. When it can't work, you'll sense an objection. Work with that objection. Dissolve it. Try again. Then you'll get another objection and so on. Work through them all.

 

The entire Buddha dharma is structured and setup to eliminate objections about solidity of objects. So the objection is, "I can't transform objects because objects are inherently what they are, independent of mind." Buddhist doctrine gives contemplative tools to smash that in every way: "Objects are not inherently anything specific. They are not independent of mind. Etc." It smashes every aspect of an objection.

 

But the best way to deal with this is not to study religion or occult in advance, because that is a waste of time. The fast way is to instantly try living as you wish. Then if you can't, you'll sense an objection (blocking belief). Then you go work on it. That way you don't waste time spinning your wheels unblocking beliefs which you might not even hold and which might not even be blocking you.

 

Magick makes sense when you can conceive of non-ordinary intentions. For this you must hold some intentions as ordinary. If you ever reach a point where ordinary no longer refers to anything, then non-ordinary disappears. Then magick also goes away. So magick is not something that necessarily has meaning at all times. It's like a medicine that only appears when someone is sick. When one is healthy, it disappears. In the healthy state, instead of magic there is simply intent. It's not split into ordinary or extraordinary. Enlightened intent always proceeds from totality of possibilities. So for this reason it's not a good idea to cling to magick, unless you think it makes sense to cling to medicine. At some point magick just becomes normal. But if you live surrounded by beings who are bewildered by the very word "magick" (this means they want and expect a certain pattern of experience they call "normal") then magick is still a relevant concept.

 

This is what I think about it. I just explained, from my point of view, everything there is to explain about magick.

Edited April 21, 2012 by goldisheavy

[C T]

I think one way of interpreting intent is to view it as a basis for measuring movement.

 

For most of us, there seems to be a constant need to reflect what is being sensed, in other words, the tendency to absorb and make sense of things that come and go around us, against a set of values we have already imputed into what we call the 'self'. This is the prime motive and action behind intent, in my view. Its very useful in a mundane sense. Many equate this ability with sanity, which is one way to explain why there is so much resistance to change... because apparently one has to replace a whole new set of 'intent' data, which is a very daunting task, to say the least. Its like willing the rug to be shaken off from under one's feet each time one arrives at any possible conclusive outcomes in terms of deriving understanding.

 

If we move away, even slightly, from the mundane, into magickal or psychical, or even spiritual territory, it might be a good idea to ask what is the role of intent in the pursuit of stillness (assuming that at the zenith of realization of magickal and psychical abilities one ultimately arrives at a still point?)

 

Also, i am wondering whether it is altogether correct to say 'contents of awareness', as opposed to 'contents of consciousness'? For me, awareness is like the light of a projector... as in, the light does not really 'contain' the images?

 

Just some thoughts.

[humbleone]

--

Edited April 21, 2012 by humbleone

[Lucky7Strikes]

@ GIH

 

If intent is something of a flow, a constant presence, then it also doesn't arise spontaneously. As you often put it, it is always contextual; you can't imagine an act without it having some sort of past basis on some other similar act. It is a product of one's condition.

 

Then there is the question of whose intent it really is from moment to moment. If you say it is "my" intent, you are neglecting the conditioned aspect of the act happening in a seamless flow. Something that is truly "my" intent would signify that the intent is something produced from an intent-less state rather than a continuous action , which you are saying is never the case.

 

It seems that the consequence of understanding intent this way shows that the agent, namely "I," and the intent of the agent is inseparable. You are your intentions, not in that poetic "your actions define who you are," but a very literal way: you are the action.

[goldisheavy]

@ GIH

 

If intent is something of a flow, a constant presence, then it also doesn't arise spontaneously.

 

Intent, on the whole, doesn't arise or cease. Rather intent changes its character. People naively split up or delineate these changes into separate individual intentions. If we then analyze these fragments of intent, of course they appear to arise and to cease. It's only natural. But if you heal the delineations, the fact that intent is there and changes is still real.

 

In other words, experience is always selective. At any one time you experience a fraction of all possible experience. There is no way to experience everything that could be experienced at once. This lively flowing selectivity of experience is a reflection of intent.

 

As you often put it, it is always contextual; you can't imagine an act without it having some sort of past basis on some other similar act. It is a product of one's condition.

 

Conditioning is never able to fully guide intent. There is always at least a tiny fragment of intent that's liberated from all conditions. When one's mind is ossified by habitual beliefs, then it seems like there is very little power left over to intent. Some people even think there is no power at all that's left over. They think all the power of change resides in the patterns themselves, and none of that power is available to one's person.

 

Let's look at a relatively very hardened experience, mine. I am surrounded by desks, chairs, cups, books, walls, Earth, sky, clocks, streets, and all these things seem very very stable. Let's say they are stable to the point of being locked down. Is there any freedom left for me? Is everything I do determined by my conditioning (internal and external)? To me the clear and obvious answer is: no. I still have the tippy tip of intent left loose. So while I can't readily levitate a house, that isn't a readily or obviously available choice for me, I can still make choices. For example, I can choose the topic of my thinking. I can think about what game to play next. Or I can think about wisdom. And I can think about how to feed myself. To me, these are free choices.

 

People will argue that even these choices are conditioned, but I will disagree. There is nothing in my environment that makes me this way, but my mentality that supports certain ways of thinking is intentional itself. So for example, spirituality can be seen as an escape from the suffering of the world. But there are many approaches to suffering. One approach is to tighten your belt, buckle up, strap yourself in, and dig in. Work more, harder, ingratiate yourself more strategically, build more and more social networks, look for more and more money, etc. That's a valid response to a challenge. Many people choose this response. Another response is to turn away from the game. That's one of the spiritual responses. That's renunciation. There is nothing in the challenge of life that inherently forces one toward renunciation. One can equally as well choose to face the challenge in a totally different way.

 

If everything is predetermined, we'd react to everything instantly. Why then are there situations that demand lengthy thinking and/or consultation with friends? A car engine doesn't stop once in a while to determine whether it should spin another cycle. If there is fuel, air and spark, it spins. It's a simple relationship. Do people's lives resemble this? In my experience, no. People are nothing like this. Sometimes people get stomped. They stop. They don't know what to do next.

 

Finally if you look at the whole of intent, including the submerged aspect of it at the deep end, the aspect that holds the cities and stars together, the mystical aspect, the totality, is what we're seeing the only thing that can be seen? Is our past the only past? In the blink of an eye, intent can change your history and past. It can make it appear as if you never lived this life as you thought you did... perhaps you are a 30 year old person called Flugin on a planet Scoromax, and your past is a long and storied past. This change can happen in the blink of an eye. To know this for sure, or to have a good intuition about how this can happen, you need to have some mystical experience (lucid dreaming and dream awareness help). So if your conditioning is your past, and if your past determines the future, then how is it we can change our past? How is it that (to make this accessible) in dreams an entire array of different pasts can spontaneously emerge? Many people dream they are a character with a certain kind of past, and your dream past can be long and storied and it can have nothing to do with this life on Earth. Your dream environment can also have its own past.

 

Then there is the question of whose intent it really is from moment to moment. If you say it is "my" intent, you are neglecting the conditioned aspect of the act happening in a seamless flow.

 

I own conditions. I don't externalize them.

 

Something that is truly "my" intent would signify that the intent is something produced from an intent-less state rather than a continuous action , which you are saying is never the case.

 

This doesn't follow for me. How can intent appear from an intent-less state? It would make intent unintentional. Seems absurd, doesn't it? If intent appears without a cause, that ruins all logic. If logic is ruined, then we can say anything we enjoy saying about intent, all arguments stop, there is nothing to talk about. If intent appears from an external cause, then we need to look at internal/external divide. As you are well aware, such divides don't last under examination. And finally we have to confront experience. This is required to be honest. Here I am. I am sitting and typing. I can type anything I want. I don't feel anything external telling me what to type. But the internal structures that guide my typing are themselves intentional. I don't feel them as if they were impositions. I don't feel pressure or a force that pressures me to type this against all resistance. And I am aware of alternatives. If I only ever needed to do what was dictated by some past, how would awareness of alternatives be useful? It would be useless. It would serve no purpose. What's the point of being aware of alternatives, if I am destined to only pick one narrow choice each time? That seems strange, right? This way of thinking would have an unexplained and crazy experiential element left-over, with no place to go or call home, post-analysis.

 

It seems that the consequence of understanding intent this way shows that the agent, namely "I," and the intent of the agent is inseparable. You are your intentions, not in that poetic "your actions define who you are," but a very literal way: you are the action.

 

Right. But I am not only my intentions. I am mind. Intentions don't make sense without context. Context is not something that drives intent, it illumines it. So if I shine a light on a car, I don't determine which turn the car will take next. I just make the car visible, I make it possible to apprehend the car, to see it, to recognize it as such, etc... that's what context does. It illumines. Based on one's prior intentions and beliefs (also intentional, but ossified), some of these illuminations can seem to guide choices. For example, if you illumine a hole in the ground, I will walk around it instead of fall into it. Does this mean context has chosen my action for me? Many people would think yes. I don't. Have all options been squashed? Is it even possible? I can walk around. I can look into the hole, get a rope and rappel into it if it's deep. If it's shallow I can step into it or get a shovel and toss some earth into it. I can walk backward instead of around. And if I am a mage, I can levitate over the hole (mages have more options!). If context could destroy options-perception, it would become the guiding force. But it can't.

 

And the more options the person can perceive, the freer the person feels. Ultimately we are all infinitely free. But if people feel no options, they feel trapped. I would even say, if spirituality doesn't endow one with a sense of more options, it's a waste of time. This is why dogma is so antithetic to real spirituality. Dogma closes off options by disallowing questioning and by suggesting that only one path is to be followed.

Edited April 21, 2012 by goldisheavy

[z00se]

The intensity of the slap will vary depending on how absorbed I am by whatever is happening on the computer. If I am very absorbed, the slap will be less painful and less noticeable. If I am distracted, the slap will feel sharper and more painful.

 

 

 

Can't you abandon this exercise at any point?

 

 

 

You didn't push your awareness, but you still permitted it to move in that direction whereas you could have blocked that experience had you so intended.

 

Intent doesn't have to feel like force, or pushing. It can be relaxed. It can be abstract (rather than concrete and specific). It can be mystical (as opposed to mundane).

 

What do you think?

 

Zoose, Castenada would say {which doesn't necessarily mean its true} that just seeing the world we see is a powerful act of intent.

 

We have locked our perceptions down on one thin wave length, and every perception within it, such as being slapped or aimless jogging, is totally conditioned to be perceived in certain ways, that suit or work with the underlying intent to see the world in the way we do...

 

This is not my understanding. This is similar to saying even the act of intent is a powerful act of the analytical mind. The Analytical mind decides to stop thinking and decides it want's to stop thinking and stop being in control so 'gives up' control to intent.

 

Intent then focuses and points your energy or awareness in a certain direction which then decides it doesn't want to be in control any more and then 'gives up' and then 'you' are not in control anymore only your environment, everything around you and everything in the universe then guides you, or god.

 

So along this thought you would have to say all contents of awareness as in your topic are also analytical. Because you don't even need the analytical -> intent -> god path you can go straight from analytical -> god. So when the analytical mind decides it wants to go with god it does.

 

I don't agree. They are layers on top of each other and the top layers can only 'give up' their control to allow the deeper layers to reveal themselves. It is not within intent's capacity to have complete god awareness, just like it is not in the analytical minds capacity to have intentional awareness. Of course likewise the complete god awareness has no capacity to choose the best option for our life as does the analytical mind.

 

With the god awareness you give what others around you want and take what is offered your way, there is no deciding based on the direction of your intent. Your awareness is just given to you, it just IS.

 

So if you're using intent all the contents of awareness are intentional but if you give up any intent then how could the contents of your awareness be intentional... intent has already left the building!