[deci belle]

A bum PM'd recently:

 

Hi. I was just looking at some of the writing on your web site and I noticed a trend. You have a really beautiful writing style, with a nicely varied vocabulary, and complex sentence structure, but you don't use many concrete images. It seems like you mostly discuss things in a sort of ephemeral, abstract way.

I'm wondering, is that intentional? Do you feel that the 'inconceivable' can't be related to through day-to-day experiences or discussed in a mundane way?

 

 

So this was my response:

 

 

Thank you for the nice comment, mon ami❤

 

It is dictated by the subject, itself~ not so much as a device, so to speak.

 

To deal with essence, it is necessary to deal with it directly, without intermediary. This is the art.

 

So yes, there is no way to name it— that is the fact. Immortalists can turn it to their advantage. The inconceivable is like anything real— what else is? Can you really say why you love someone? The created tangible aspect is what's unreal. It isn't separate from the real though, and vice-versa. To be attached to one or the other is delusion— that applies to those who, having seen their buddha-nature, become attached to the absolute.

 

When this happens, they are unable to enter the polluted, and so become trapped in the delusion of a separate "pure" nature, outside of reality— this too is polluted. Only Complete Reality is the Middle Way, the Great Vehicle of sages, saints, adepts, buddhas and immortals without beginning.

 

Recently, I can't remember who was saying… it was about referring to seeing potential, and the point was that when you experience a sense vulnerability (or a "gap") in the situation or one's vulnerability (of a gap or as a gap) in terms of the evolution of the situation, the point was that what one recognizes as potential is the intangible aspect. When recognizing the real, one does not then dare venture further to name it). That would be arbitrary.

 

In alchemical terms, this is sealing potential away without leaking so much as a spark (void of intellectualism). When we seal it away and maintain a subtle consistency of concentration (awareness) not so much on what we seal away but that we have sealed away, potential is naturally refined into elixir. It doesn't require thought, just a subtle attention.

 

Attention is the quality of concentration that warms the unrefined elixir in the pot pairing fire and water. It is a natural process, like when you eat, the food is digested without thinking about whatever the ephemeral physical body does with it. When potential is sealed away in the empty vessel, the real immaterial body purifies the unrefined potential to create the basis of the future immortal in the Center, which has no location.

 

If you recognize it (such that it is in fact intangible), that's what it is. It has never been otherwise. So seeing the intangible in terms of a sense of vulnerability, which can't be nailed down either, is recognizing the real.

 

Just the knowledge itself is the gathering of potential. When one cultivates a vulnerability to the times of gathering, or seeing gathering (not that anything is actually gathered), it is the result of self-clarification (self-refinement) to the degree enabling the sensitivity to do so.

 

Why do people do this? It is possible to do so, that's all. I believe it was in the same thread that I answered the question in terms of gathering. Why? Because not doing so is going along with creation, that's all. To do so is the practice of enlightening being, that's all— it's just the way it is. Enlightening being is in not going along with creation.

 

It's just the way it is.

 

I liked your question…❤ So I will go a little bit further.

 

One actually abstracts ordinary existence itself, such that one develops a sort of impersonal relationship with phenomena. It starts out artificial, but it becomes real. The real relationship is seeing through phenomena without denying characteristics, gathering potential in the midst of situations unbeknownst to anyone. It's just there for the picking, if you can see it.

 

There is a Chinese book called the Master of Demon Valley (Kuei-ku tzu) written in the 4th century BC. In the chapter on "Excitation and Arrest". The 10th section states, "When you use this on people, it starts out unreal but comes to be real". Like a conversation with someone you've just started dating and it eventually develops into a real relationship.

 

The real is the intangible, non?

 

 

 

 

ed note: typo in 2nd paragraph

Edited December 11, 2013 by deci belle

[suninmyeyes]

Inspirational , deci !

[deci belle]

i sm00ches Vous!! haha!!❤❤

 

 

I added a further response to the PM's conversation:

 

Thanks for your prompt reply. I just read it and my initial reaction is that I'm lacking some context that would be necessary for me to completely understand what you're saying. I'll ponder it further.

 

 

Ya, since there is no context beyond one's personal application of seeing outside of the personal identity, it is impossible to discuss the subtle spiritual operation of enlightening being.

 

When oneself sees reality, it is in having no ideas relative to the person seeing— just seeing what is, almost like you are already dead to the world, but not letting on (heehee!!).

 

You really don't even have to know what that person (ego) would think. It becomes the freedom to know what is really happening, so you then know other as free as you are (but most likely free to be deluded in terms of actually having ideas (that you might very well deal with, however subtly *or not*).

 

This is presence, where knowledge is immediate~ so, really, what's to know other than the situation, itself, on its terms— and dealing with its inherent potential?

 

Its potential is just awareness itself. It is nonpsychological, and the nonpsychologicl is spiritual.

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: add part below sun's sm00chies~ heehee!!❤

Edited December 10, 2013 by deci belle

[dawei]

you mostly discuss things in a sort of ephemeral, abstract way.

 

My abstract summary:

 

 

deal with it directly, without intermediary. This is the art.

 

the point was that what one recognizes as potential is the intangible aspect.

 

So seeing the intangible in terms of a sense of vulnerability, which can't be nailed down either, is recognizing the real.

 

The real is the intangible, non?

 

Its potential is just awareness itself. It is nonpsychological, and the nonpsychologicl is spiritual.

 

 

Thanks Deci

[nestentrie]

A bum PM'd recently:

 

Hi. I was just looking at some of the writing on your web site and I noticed a trend. You have a really beautiful writing style, with a nicely varied vocabulary, and complex sentence structure, but you don't use many concrete images. It seems like you mostly discuss things in a sort of ephemeral, abstract way.

 

I'm wondering, is that intentional? Do you feel that the 'inconceivable' can't be related to through day-to-day experiences or discussed in a mundane way?

 

It seems to me that the bum was just asking: why no metaphor? why no mundane examples? I'm not sure he was asking for further elucidation of the concepts.

 

Without handles anything can seem abstract after a lot of verbiage.

 

You did however use a metaphor in your second post deci, with the reference to developing a romantic relationship.

[deci belle]

Great crystalization, dawei!!❤

 

I did the same thing to books by underlining parts of series of protracted phrases in various passages (in the alchemical treatises mainly), to make up concentrated statements that crystalize the section for future reference.

 

Do you mind, nestentrie?— it IS abstracted. It comes out this way on the spot. Please don't provide literary analysis second-guessing the contents of my threads. …if you are a publisher, you can have your people contact my people… otherwise, I'd like for you run along, for now at least …and I do want that to sound nice, ok!!❤

[nestentrie]

If that sounds nice, then ok, deci belle.

[deci belle]

I want you to lose the passive aggression, dear. If you may not be up to speed with the content of this thread, just wait a little while until you have the means to comment effectively on topic.

 

It's a matter of style beyond the literary sense.

 

Please don't be in such a hurry to rack up posts commenting on that which is currently beyond your ability to do so. All it takes is openness, sincerity and time.❤

 

If you have any questions on the actual content of my threads, you may PM me, if that suits you.

 

btw, I have worn out a few of these Taoist I Ching volumes too, (not to mention several others). If you are anything like me, it wasn't that much fun~ haha!!

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: add nestentrie's experienced avatar and last line

Edited December 11, 2013 by deci belle

[nestentrie]

Please don't be in such a hurry to rack up posts commenting on that which is currently beyond your ability to do so. All it takes is openness, sincerity and time.❤it wasn't that much fun~ haha!!

 

You're right. I'm only 20 posts in and already skirting an argument. Not what I intended.

 

Sorry I stepped on your thread and offended you. I do generally like what you have to say, btw.

[deci belle]

Yes, nestentrie~ I PM'd you, ok?❤❤

[Green Tiger]

It seems to me that the bum was just asking: why no metaphor? why no mundane examples? I'm not sure he was asking for further elucidation of the concepts.

 

Without handles anything can seem abstract after a lot of verbiage.

 

You did however use a metaphor in your second post deci, with the reference to developing a romantic relationship.

 

I think further elucidation of the concepts is implied in the question, and I felt that it was a very eloquent elucidation at that. I thought the simile regarding how storing potential is like eating and not thinking about what the body does with the food was particularly nice.

 

Linking difficult concepts to more familiar ones is a writing tool that can be useful, but isn't really necessary. It could even be undesirable if you highly value the integrity of your subject. For those willing to invest the time and attention/concentration required to stay with the words and really be there with them, I think understanding will manifest itself naturally.

 

Edit: I want to add that I recently noticed statements made regarding the use of language as an intentional teaching tool. The idea that some teachings can be worded just so to let ready minds in and keep unprepared minds out. I find the idea very interesting. Like a sort of linguistic camouflage. It would take a deft hand indeed to pen such phrases, I think.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Green Tiger