Gross/Subtle Forms/Forces

Technically one never destroys life, one only destroys forms and form potentials.
Similarly, one never creates life, one only nurtures forms and form potentials.
What cannot be destroyed or created are the unborn/unformed potentials themselves. Life is this unborn potentiality itself.
What I truly am in my purest/distilled/untangled form is this “infinite unborn potential” manifesting in/as/across the entire field as a shimmering of possibilities.

But in the case of forms, it is very easy to destroy a form.
If 2 digital cameras say meet each other (haha), they might click pictures of each other in their different modes and quality settings.
Whereas, say a hammer were to meet a digital camera, in its nature, it would hit/smash and the form of the digital camera would instantly lose its structure/function/integrity.
The hammer however can continue to stay in its nature happily and still retain its function.
The subtler camera structure has however lost its form integrity and functionality.

So this gives me the impression that, subtler forms are inherently more beautiful and rich but also much more fragile.
The subtler the form, the more fragile/vulnerable it is.
Fear is the protective mechanism, when a subtler form is in the presence of a lot of gross forces, because as in the example I demonstrated, the grosser forces would destroy this rich subtle form.

But what about forces? The tables turn here.
The subtle forces are much more powerful than gross forces.
For instance, the force of a rock can do nothing to the air, but the force of air can wear the rock away and still stay unaffected.
Like how the asteroids are vaporized by the time they reach the surface of the earth due to their friction with air.

Good/evil and delusion, are connected to the force and not the forms.
The forms are maintained or adopted by the forces, to carry out their function.
The force uses forms.
When the force attaches and identifies itself with a specific form, it identifies with the form instead of itself and gets limited to maintaining/protecting/improving the form – creating what we call ego.
Enlightenment is to shift identification from the form to the force which frees up the force.
And probably, there is an identification possible that even transcends force.

Freedom for the force is – non-attachment and non-identification with forms.
And freedom from both the form and force is to stay/identify with and as awareness.

Essence vs. Degree

All essences are NOW.
Time is only the play of ‘degrees of essence’.
For instance, the essence of light is always present.
And the essence of mystery/change is always present.
It is only the degree that varies in time.

For instance, day and night represent different degrees of light.
But light is always there.
Similarly change/mystery/surprise is always there, but its degree varies a lot in time.
For instance, if you go to a tightly packed vacation, say to a new country, there would be a lot more change/mystery, whereas, an ordinary day would contain a much lesser degree of mystery/surprise.

Opposites are not different things, they are different degrees of the same thing.
So all essences are present now.
This is what makes reincarnation irrelevant, which simply represents a much greater degree of change.

I AM …THAT…

infinity-art-2-thumb-475x346-243418-660x280

I am not the following:
space, time, avatar, 6th density being, infj, wanderer, imagineer, realist, practicalist, wordly, other-worldly, dreamy, immanent, abstract, literal, metaphoric, son of god, god, sun, moon, healer, mystic, traveler of worlds, psychonaut, loner, lover, hater, socialite, good, bad, proud, humble, mystical, cooperative, competitive, technie, citizen, warrior, genius, vague, clear, fog, bright, dull, dark, life, death, creation, destruction, black, white…
I am none of the concept-association-meaning-infused-worlds.
All meaning worlds appear in me.
Even great integrative life-near super meta-concept worlds appear in me.

All of this, appears in me, and as me, and it is me, and not me too, because I am infinitely greater than any one formation.
My mind is like tape playing linearly in time, various formations, one at a time.
They are all plays in the realm/screen I call my mind.
The part of me outside of this grand mind screen, the dimension above, is learning that “I AM NOT” deeper and deeper, and this understanding is gradually getting infused and pervading my mind-dimension experiences too.
This higher knowledge is organically and gradually infusing and spreading.

The knowledge of “I AM NOT” is the greatest knowledge I can ever possess.
Another way to describe this would be:
I am the MIRROR, whatever appears is me, but I am eternally free of my reflection images.
I am “Infinite unborn potential & the Infinite born manifest”.
“All is Empty”, “All is a form within me”, “I am the formless containing all the forms”, “I am the infinite nothing that contains all possible somethings”.
But whatever I say I am, I am narrowing the infinite I am down to that conception (This conception might be incredibly inclusive and vast, but it still excludes the equally vast pole/world of its opposite).
For instance, even if I say I am the universe as an assertion, then what about the infinite non-universe/beyond-universe?
So, no thing/word/concept/idea/thought/world defines me.
“I AM THE CREATOR AND DESTROYER OF ALL WORLDS”
“I AM BEYOND and INSIDE/WITHIN”
“I AM TRANSCENDENCE and IMMANENCE”

“I AM…THAT…”

Everything is self-evident

Everything is self-evidently perfect
The one with eyes will see
The one without eyes will not see
The one with blurry eyes will see blurry
The one with clear eyes will see clear
The one with tunnel vision will see tunneled
The one with wide vision will see wide
The one with desire will seek
The one without desire will not seek
The one with guilt will punish/deprive oneself
The one with pride will pleasure/provide oneself
The one who feels worthy will celebrate
The one who feels unworthy will feel sad
The one with hope will strive
The one who loses hope will drop his efforts
…and so on

You can only give, what you have received

In terms of childhood personality programming, I’ve had the following empirical observation:
RULE:
“You can only give, what you have received”
Whatever you have received, forms the ceiling of your compassion.
There is no absolute standard here, its all relative.

For example:
If your salary is $60000, and fulfilling all your needs takes up $30000, leaving you with an excess of $30000 for free spending.
In this situation, you can easily feel compassion for anybody earning less than $30000.
But, can you feel compassion for a person earning $100,000? – No right? – because it is much beyond your income.
Another example:
Say you score 75/100 in math. You feel compassionate towards someone who has scored 40 or 60/100.
But will you feel compassion to a person who has scored 90/100? – No right? – because it is much beyond your score.

I’ve seen the care we have received in childhood sets our standards for later life.
For instance, if your partner asks you something that is far above the care you have received, then you simply call it unreasonable/unjustified. Whereas if they ask you something that you have consistently received yourself, then you may immediately do it without any expectation because you feel it was “totally reasonable”.

What determines what is “reasonable” and “unreasonable”?
It is totally relative to what you have received.

Once deep contemplation awakens in you, you access much greater standards of compassion, than was provided to you by what you received as a child/formative years.

Another algorithm for processing experiences

Another great strategy for dealing with all difficulties/experiences/pains is:
“See through it OR See it through” (inspired from Scott Mandelker)

Seeing through it is to recognize the emptiness of it.
Seeing it through is to sit with the raw experience compassionately without fueling it or interfering with it.

Seeing through it requires Fearlessness.
Seeing it through requires Compassion.

Algorithm for solving all problems

Personal:
Look at the emotions now (look at the contraction)
Ask – what is the cause of them? – find the mental stories and write them down.
Ask – what would be the antidote for this? – find the antidote mental stories
Transpersonal:
Ask – what is the wisdom about such a situation/event/condition happening to someone?
Ask – what is the wisdom that someone would need to process/complete/let go of this?
Final Step:
Complete the process and Let Go!

General masses vs. sociopaths vs. contemplators

GENERAL MASSES
In my experience, for most people, their emotions like desire, anger, liking, aversion etc. is all mapped to specific outer stuff.
There is a recognizable structure in their emotional mappings to the outer world.
But when you question them, they will always only point to the literal person, object, some situation happening, and attribute causation directly to the outer.
They cannot see their own structure, because they are seeing through that.
All their emotions are outward mapped onto a specific world image, projected from their structure, which is completely invisible and thereby absolutely true for them.
When you question them, they do not introspect, rather they might try to attack you/avoid you/ignore you/deny everything you say/attack the finger that points/ manipulate the finger etc.
This is because they cannot see what you are pointing at, at all.

SOCIOPATHS:
Sociopaths are on the far end of this spectrum.
They see the world through a hard integrated simplistic structure, that is opportunistic and looks to exploit everything for itself.
Their self structure is almost totally invulnerable to influence.
Nothing can change their reality orientation from outside since their eyes are always looking outward only.
So if you point to a structure they have, its as if you are pointing to something that does not exist. They would simply view that as an attack and try to attack your view.

Broadly the spectrum is:
Total self-reflection (total self-incrimination)—————– Total self-projection (total blame)
The spectrum could also be viewed as:
Sociopath ——————— Contemplator.
I would say, sociopaths are closer to animals, in the sense, their nature is unchangeable and immutable.
They cannot reflect on themselves and see ‘self’ as object.
So their whole world is their playground and they will demand everywhere and manipulate.
What are people on the other end of the spectrum called? – I would say, contemplators.
The following introspective functions are present in contemplators:
self-contemplation, self-examination, self-observation, self-questioning, self-reflection, self-scrutiny, self-searching, soul-searching, self-analysis, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-recognition; introversion, self-absorption, self-centeredness, self-concern, self-involvement; self-actualization, self-discovery, self-exploration, self-fulfillment, self-realization; self-knowledge, self-revelation; self-concept, self-image, self-perception; contemplation, meditation, reflection, rumination

Contemplators cannot outrospect/project easily and operate from seeing all of reality as their responsibility including serving others.
Their self is likely prone to getting into ruminative thought loops, chaos, getting caught in logical paradoxes, conflicting desires, traffic jam energies…and so on.
The mindset of total self-projection, the state of the sociopath, is the state of mind one has when in a stage performance or when facing a big threat like a wild animal. One’s attention is then totally outward focused and that gives a taste of what a sociopath mind state is like to the contemplator folk.

Generally, when does inward focus happen then? – It happens in boredom, when there is 0 outer pressure, and when there is no threat OR if the threat is inescapable, then you retreat into total inward focus.
Another way to look at it is that sociopaths are like one-time programmable only chips, after that they function without being influenced. They are like clay that has hardened into rock.
The contemplators on the other hand are permanently programmable chips. They are ever malleable and changeable.
Contemplators stay permanently as clay.

I would think, sociopaths can comfortably roam around in the social world, because they are immune to all influences, and their total outward focus is the ideal state for survival and self-protection.
A contemplator on the other hand tends to avoid the social world, because he is very impressionable and malleable, and his outward focus is only when there are threats (i.e. he freezes into a structure temporarily only when there are threats), else he stays in his total malleable state.
So freezing into various forms and staying that way in social environments is ok if it is temporary, but to do that every day is burdensome for the contemplator.
That is why taking up one profession is difficult for a deep contemplator, because that is like forcing a malleable entity take up the same configuration/structure every single day for most of the day.
It is denying him the freedom he feels inside him everyday.
Contemplators are living in the meta-programming world itself.
Surviving in a world full of solid people is annoying for the contemplator, because he is exceptionally free and flexible but can never interact with others in that freedom.
The only way to interact with most people is to create quasi structures and interact with them within the acceptability zones intuited.
The contemplator is formless i.e. he has no intrinsic form and he is continuously aware of his freedom.
Whereas the sociopath is like a rock, a solid form, and he sees the entire world through this filter.

Love = Knowledge, Extent of Love

When another person understands you, it’s their love/connection that understands.
When you understand another person, it’s your love/connection that understands.
If you understand others, but they do not understand you, then that is because your love is much greater and encompasses them.
Love = Connection = Light = Knowing = Understanding.
There is no difference between love and knowledge, and love is light, and light is knowledge.

Reconciling opposites

cube_illusion

I’m trying to reconcile these opposites:
Is it:
God -> Society first -> Individual ——-OR——- Individual -> Society -> God
Is it:
Understanding -> Interpretation ——-OR——- Interpretation -> Understanding
Is it:
Structure -> Experience ——-OR—— Experience -> Structure
Is it:
Seeing -> Believing ————OR———– Believing -> Seeing


Reminds me of the cube illusion – where you can see things either way and both will be valid.