Posts

Posted on

The mind can see all at once

Your eyes are seeing everything at once.
Similarly your mind sees everything at once too, just like your eyes.
The logical part of mind should be a servant to this global seeing/feeling/sensing mind.
Because the logical part of mind is the map, while this global seeing instantaneous mind is the territory.
The map should reflect the territory, and not the other way.
If you only use logical frameworks divorced from actual-gestalt-instantaneous-whole-sensing, then this unchanging logical framework with GRATE on the changing whole, and create suffering all the time as a result.
Posted on

True illusion vs. False illusion

trueillusion

True illusion is the very dream of life.
It is the very flow of life.
True illusion is shimmering and ever changing.

False illusion on the other hand is,
a solidification and holding on of fragments of the true illusion.
It is like holding a bucket against the river of life/true illusion,
and now the bucket contents stay statically with you as the false illusion
It is important to note that,
the false illusion too, derives its source from the true illusion only
It is just created by one thing only, HOLDING ON.
Posted on

Enmeshment/Entanglement Issue

I am unable to maintain my preferred reality against another’s reality frequency.
For example, if the person with me says – I hate X, then it is like:
Other person ———HATE————> X
Me ———————————> X
My relationship to X is [undefined] and is [open to influence] like a mirror.
So I get influenced by the other person and this affects my perception:
Me ——————HATE—————-> X
Now I do not want to hate X, and I feel powerless/helpless to change that HATE relationship towards X, which is not my preference, and which is osmotically being transferred to me by the other’s presence.
Its as if, if I don’t already carry a strong opinion about something (which is rare), then that opinion slot is simply open and receiving, and downloads the other person’s opinion (‘imagined by me’ or ‘clearly stated by the other’).
Its as if my whole substance is like a mirror.
I mirror the other person’s opinion and it is not my inner preference.
So then, I attack the other person for HATING X, and try to convert the other person into LIKING X, so that the mirroring will allow me to like X, which is my actual preference.
In that person’s presence, it is almost impossible for me to see X in any other perspective apart from how the other sees X.
So the silliness is that, I try to change the other person into liking X, so that I can like X.
The core belief seems to be: I do not give myself permission to have a relationship with a person/thing other than what the person next to me has(really stated or imagined). I fear having a contrary view, contrary opinion, contrary world view etc. I also fear being more open than the other, and I tend to contract my viewpoint, direction of energies, energy structures to match the other’s openness. Its like I am at the mercy of the other and the only control I have is to AVOID or CONFRONT. But the confrontation is only so that, I can ultimately have my own preference back.

This sounds really silly, but this is a DEEP ENMESHMENT/Entanglement issue.
Posted on

Freedom is by staying as void

Freedom is in the void.
It in when you have both:
– anti-knowledge and knowledge.
– perspective and anti-perspective
– matter and anti-matter
etc.
The freedom eagle needs both the wings of creation and destruction to move.
Otherwise free movement is not possible
That is the art of learning alchemy and transmutation.
Of sliding along the poles of the same things.
Depression —————————- Joy
Bad ———————————- Good
Preoccupied ———————– Available/free
Stuck ———————– Free
Negative ——————- Positive
Non-sexual —————- Sexual
Passion ——————— Anti-passion
To be stuck is to be unable to shift perspective/shift reality/change.
The ability to shift perspective like this along the poles of things is the greatest freedom.
Else I am enslaved and CANNOT MOVE out of a rigid interpretation or structure.
The ability to focus and move along the poles axis of thought and perspective, is the freedom.
This however requires a lot of energy.
Greater the energy, greater the ability to shimmery change into anything.
Spectrum of available energy:
Low energy stuckness ————————– High energy shimmery change.
As your energy reduces, your karma accumulations will get to you.
It is like imagine someone started giving you $1000 a day and gradually increased it each day until it reached $100,000.
Say you bought a bunch of things with it and made a bunch of investments.
Once it reaches 100,000 a day, say the money given everyday starts reducing until it becomes $1000 again.
Now your life investments in the downward phase will be constantly grating on you. You will have to sell, give up, let go of a lot of stuff and still how much ever you give up, there will still be a strain on resources. All your investments will continue to be unsustainable.
This is until you give up everything and get back to your long ago state of having $1000 a day.
Karma looks to be something like that.
It is a cycle.
There is high energy to begin with, super high vibration, we create all kinds of reality with that, and enjoy them, then eventually the excess free energy gets exhausted, and then the energy starts decreasing causing you to drop all your creations, until 0. Then another wave starts.
Karma is created by attachment and investment.
So riding the wave without attachment and with dispassion/dis-investment allows you to live the energy flow without losing any to upholding/maintaining karma accumulations(which inevitably result in the pain of loss in the downward cycle) and transcend the cycle.
Posted on

Energetic Principle of Ego

The ego works primarily on assertion and denial.
There are a lot of profound facts about assertion and denial.
1 – What you assert, is exactly what does not already exist.
In other words, the energy that MAKES the assertion DOES NOT CONTAIN the asserted thing which is precisely why it is making the assertion in order to bring into being that which is not already present.
2 – You can only deny that which already exists.
The energy that makes the denial, already contains the denied object. How can you deny something that does not even exist?
These 2 rules above have profound implications for the understanding of our own psyche and other peoples’ psyche.
So assertion, brings into being that which is not effortlessly present and denial shields that which is already effortlessly present in being.
These are the 2 obfuscating mechanisms, that prevent you from seeing/feeling/experiencing the deeper reality/self.
Both assertion and denial is to be let go, in order to dwell/be/see into the deeper reality.
Posted on

Knowledge is the substitute for love

Knowledge is needed when you cannot see the thing/person, when you are not connected to the thing, when you are not ATTUNED to that thing.
So in such a state, you are essentially blind, and you’ll therefore need all kinds of memorized knowledge, facts, rigid methods and theories about the thing and use that to RELATE with the thing, which looks like a “black box” to you.
Knowledge is not required however when you can directly SEE the thing/person.
I could say, DIRECT SEEING = LOVE = DIRECT KNOWING/APPREHENSION.
For imagination sake, it is like a superior sense organ that directly sees/perceives/knows instantly.
How is this achieved? – By ATTUNEMENT.

I read a very interesting fact in psychology which now makes a lot of sense:
“The overly solicitous mother is that way to her child, PRECISELY because of her inability to LOVE/CONNECT/SEE the child which makes her resort to such a behavior as a SUBSTITUTE.”

Imagine the situation of the blind men and the elephant.
The blind men are blind from their lack of willingness to SEE (in this analogy).
So each of them explores different parts of the elephant and makes up complex theories on its structure, say.
But supposing you come along and you are in the KNOW/SEEING, then you can directly see the elephant, you can also see the blind men, you can also see their strange theories/deductions and last of all, you can also see the entire elephant and its structure instantly and clear as daylight.
That is the difference that connection/attunement/love/’direct seeing’ make.
Posted on

Two kinds of relationships

I broadly see 2 kinds of relationships:
– Ego relationships: Based on reciprocal exchanges from each others’ reservoirs, transactional relationship.
– Source relationships: Based on direct flow from the source.
If you get exhausted/tired/depleted and as a result resenting/angry/demanding – then it is a sign that: 1 – You are in a transactional relationship and the transaction is not really working, like withdrawing cash at an ATM and the ATM deducts the money but does not dispense the cash or gives out only a fraction of it. It is living in scarcity.
2 – Source relationships: Your relationship and investments in it are coming directly as a flow from the source which is abundant and infinite. So that way your reservoir tanks of will are full and you are filled with energy.
Your movement does not drain your resources at all because it is directly working from source energy.
To give another analogy:
Point 1 is like using the laptop battery for power.
Point 2 is like plugging it to an A/C source. So not only is the battery full, you can also do whatever you want without worrying about LOSS of power, or depletion of your battery (reservoir).
Another way to put it would be:
Point 1 is Ego Relationships (fundamentally work on scarcity, just like the money system)
Point 2 is Source Relationships (fundamentally work on abundance, there is only celebration)
Ego relationships though can also be very harmonious and fair, its not wrong or anything, like we see in many of the successful marriages around the world. That would be basically akin to a fair trade system.
Source relationships on the other hand happen when you flow with the source energy and not with your stored reservoir of will. They are effortless and retain fullness at all times.
One way to tune into this reality would be, imagine there are no others at all and there is only you. Now what would you do then? If in such a state of being, you choose to have a relationship and invest in an other(spontaneously), then it is a source relationship.
Posted on

About power

Power is invisible, and resistance is visible.
So if you “see” resistance, you are basically seeing powerlessness.
Posted on

Center of being

single-point2

All suffering/pain is from not being in alignment with one’s true self/frequency/center of being
All pleasure/happiness is from being in alignment with one’s true self/frequency/center of being
– (inspired from Bentinho’s work)

We always have a pull towards our true being/alignment/center.
So resisting that pull is suffering, and all the structures that impede this movement towards that pull create resistance and therefore suffering.

The truth is always flowing as a river, at every moment…
Even our resistance is created/upheld/maintained/supported by us at every moment by the structures we hold on to that impede this river.
Every moment is an opportunity to let go.
A fresh opportunity is available at each moment.
We are given infinite chances.

The diagram illustrates standing in the center of your being.
The farther away you are from that, the less power you will have, the less happiness you will feel, the less alive you will feel and the more disconnected you will feel.
We are always pulled towards this center, and I could say, all our life and all our seeking is to find this center and live from there as the infinite abundance.
Posted on

Stuff about ultimate reality being love sounds like BS to me

Are you universal love right now?
[What if you are feeling all terrible, diseased, sick, disconnected, scattered, lost, miserable, lonely, desperate now? Does that resemble “love” in any way?]
If your answer is no, and that love is another state of exalted existence which is what is actually real and this is partially unreal at-least compared to that, then you are giving that the higher reality status, and have already created a spectrum of:
Less real ———————————- More real
Now, you have to find another reality that transcends this spectrum, and which will send you back to the drawing board with regards to the ultimate truth.
The ultimate truth has nothing to do with a specific experience of ‘love’, by any definition that is commonly known.
If we want to call the ultimate reality as love, then the definition of love would have to be radically revised, and it should mean, Love = Ultimate reality. What could that be? Such a definition of love is as inconceivable and beyond, as ultimate reality itself.
Then why is the word ‘love’ somehow treated as more relatable, than ultimate reality? It looks equally strange/inconceivable/unimaginable.
That is with regard to all the conventional definitions of love, all of which have a connotation of FEELING pleasant/good.
It is exclusive, and not all-inclusive that the ultimate reality is.

Let me try to re-look from a deep esoteric/abstract angle:
If I ponder over it now, I think ‘love’ represents the reclaiming of wholeness in its fundamental substance that is the substrate and field for all form manifestations.
In that line of thought, “Love = Reclamation”.
The self is fundamentally what we claim to be.
So love and self are analogous. Love = Self.
So then I could also say “identification” is love.
Because what we identify with, is our self at that moment.
Then, Love = Self = Identification.
Identifying (as a verb) = the act of loving = the act of self-ing.
We could then say, the journey from “identifying with the personal” to “identifying with the universal”, is the journey of the expansion of identification, the expansion of love, to include everything as one-self.
But it goes beyond the inclusion of everything, because then we are assuming the ‘everything’ has a definite existence, when in truth, its all changing/real-unreal/flow.
So then, if ‘love’ is all inclusive, it also includes love for the process of creation (which we all readily relate to) and for the process of destruction too (which includes all the stuff we generally abhor in our culture – death, sickness, disease, weariness, tiredness etc.).
Universal love would obviously include all forms of the field. That would imply it would also include society’s most hated criminals – serial killers, brutal hate crimes, all kinds of torturers, destructive leaders and every other form of stomach churning/pain inducing manifestations.

And then another common misconception of love is that, it implys/means that you MUST/OUGHT TO serve the CONTINUITY of existence for that living being/object (in whatever form) etc.
Why should that be the case?
Then again such a love is exclusive, since it might exclude your own well-being, like say a serial killer is attacking you.
If you love the serial killer, does it imply that you just ALLOW him to kill you? OR Do you kill him as a preemptive move in order to protect others you love? OR Are you supposed to simply defend yourself by causing the least harm to both yourself and the other?
What is the correct principle or behavior?
Each principle or behavior is invariably exclusive, while love is all-inclusive.
We can know about others only through their behavior.
How can we possibly have any ideology/conception with regards to what all-inclusive love looks like, when it transcends everything?
The love could be both, a nectar that draws you towards it and exalts you or it can also like the moth being pulled towards a flame.
The commonality in both cases is the PULL force.
Then is love the pulling force? No, we can’t say that, because then it excludes the pushing force.
Can a person not push you away, because he/she loves you? (sounds plausible right)
Eventually with this reasoning we may conclude love is existence itself.
But love transcends that too, and also includes non-existence.
I cannot even say love is the movement of existence because love would allow existence to move, be-still and even non-exist, since it is all inclusive.

This inquiry was to illuminate the common notions and expectations of love we uphold, which are all only various forms of exclusion.
Even the serial killer, after all, loves his serial killing hobby (it might make you cringe to even consider that).
In the light of all that, I even question, why do people insist on using the word ‘love’ to refer to the ultimate reality? Is that even appropriate, considering all the baggage it brings at every level?
If love is all inclusive, it allows EVERYTHING, including the most ghastly things that nobody would dare even call love.