In the regular worldly sense, all power comes from structure.
And maintaining structural integrity is essential for doing anything.
Like imagine instead of tongs, you had 2 feathers.
Can you then even pick up a cookie with those 2 feathers?!
The power of the tongs comes from its structural resilience.
People in the world who are committed to being objective,
Are essentially committed to power itself.
Power here is holding one perspective “as absolute” and then changing/altering the surroundings with that in mind.
The example I used of the “feathers vs. tongs”, applies to the intangible and invisible mind levels too.
There is no “essential difference” between objective and subjective.
Objective = Solidified subjective.
“Doing something” implies “achieving some goal”.
And so the “goal” becomes the “organizing principle” for “the structure” you decide to cathect into.
And the goal itself comes from the “belief structure” which conditions the person’s vision, into seeing the goal as relevant/important in the first place.
The “belief structure conditioning” is from programming, environmental, social, cultural, parental, childhood influences, and the person’s own innate tendencies/nature/potentials/level of evolution/level of vision capacity etc. (referred to as samskharas, vasanas etc. in yogic terminology)
So there are different manifestations of power from:
Subtle —-to—– Gross
Spanning from the subtle and extending all the way to the gross.
For instance, which is more powerful?
A burned solid clay pot OR a ball of clay?
Generally we define power by our notion of usefulness/goals.
From that notion, the burnt clay pot is much more powerful to hold something inside it.
But metaphysical speaking and from a broader context, the ball of clay is actually more powerful. Because it can be shaped into anything.
Just like water is more powerful than anything solid.
Because the solid is rigid, and rigidity is also fragility.
However strong the solid is, it cannot match the strength of water.
Bruce Lee is known to have had profound insight from striking water, which is why his famous expression came out: “…Be like water my friend…”.
So there is apparent power and there is real power.
Like supposing a gunman is hired by a secret agency to threaten someone.
Who is more powerful? The gunman? OR the agency?
The gunman has the gun, and looks to be the one in power.
But really he is only carrying out the agency’s bidding who have convinced him that being an instrument for their cause would be in his interest.
So it is the agency that is actually in power, is it not?
Lets take another example that challenges our standard notion of what power is.
Is an adult more powerful than a child?
Well from the looks of it, it seems like obviously the adult is more powerful.
But the child can be programmed to become anything.
Actuality is ONE, but POTENTIAL is Infinite.
I think the essential difference I am pointing out here is of:
The power to do —-vs—– The power to be.
And I would argue the power to BE vastly trumps the power to DO, from a metaphysical context, because it is prior to the doing, and it is what shapes the doing itself.
And maintaining structural integrity is essential for doing anything.
Like imagine instead of tongs, you had 2 feathers.
Can you then even pick up a cookie with those 2 feathers?!
The power of the tongs comes from its structural resilience.
People in the world who are committed to being objective,
Are essentially committed to power itself.
Power here is holding one perspective “as absolute” and then changing/altering the surroundings with that in mind.
The example I used of the “feathers vs. tongs”, applies to the intangible and invisible mind levels too.
There is no “essential difference” between objective and subjective.
Objective = Solidified subjective.
“Doing something” implies “achieving some goal”.
And so the “goal” becomes the “organizing principle” for “the structure” you decide to cathect into.
And the goal itself comes from the “belief structure” which conditions the person’s vision, into seeing the goal as relevant/important in the first place.
The “belief structure conditioning” is from programming, environmental, social, cultural, parental, childhood influences, and the person’s own innate tendencies/nature/potentials/level of evolution/level of vision capacity etc. (referred to as samskharas, vasanas etc. in yogic terminology)
So there are different manifestations of power from:
Subtle —-to—– Gross
Spanning from the subtle and extending all the way to the gross.
For instance, which is more powerful?
A burned solid clay pot OR a ball of clay?
Generally we define power by our notion of usefulness/goals.
From that notion, the burnt clay pot is much more powerful to hold something inside it.
But metaphysical speaking and from a broader context, the ball of clay is actually more powerful. Because it can be shaped into anything.
Just like water is more powerful than anything solid.
Because the solid is rigid, and rigidity is also fragility.
However strong the solid is, it cannot match the strength of water.
Bruce Lee is known to have had profound insight from striking water, which is why his famous expression came out: “…Be like water my friend…”.
So there is apparent power and there is real power.
Like supposing a gunman is hired by a secret agency to threaten someone.
Who is more powerful? The gunman? OR the agency?
The gunman has the gun, and looks to be the one in power.
But really he is only carrying out the agency’s bidding who have convinced him that being an instrument for their cause would be in his interest.
So it is the agency that is actually in power, is it not?
Lets take another example that challenges our standard notion of what power is.
Is an adult more powerful than a child?
Well from the looks of it, it seems like obviously the adult is more powerful.
But the child can be programmed to become anything.
Actuality is ONE, but POTENTIAL is Infinite.
I think the essential difference I am pointing out here is of:
The power to do —-vs—– The power to be.
And I would argue the power to BE vastly trumps the power to DO, from a metaphysical context, because it is prior to the doing, and it is what shapes the doing itself.
Journey to the Abstract 