Tag: Reality

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

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

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

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.
Posted on

The creative void/Brahman

No experience I have ever had could be otherwise.
Everything is exactly the way it is, and experience is free-falling from the void and returning to it.
“I myself” as an apparent controller/agent am an appearance and part of this free-fall of experience.
It is as if life(manifest) spills out from death and returns to death(void) – The creative void.
This creative void endlessly spills out movies of experience and apparent subjects and points of view.
Also the world, other people, objects are all arising in consciousness which is the real substance all of it is made up of.
Consciousness or the manifest arises from this creative void – like a media player visualization.
This creative void has no substance, or nature, or form. Just as your eyes should not have any color in order that you see all outer colors clearly (else if your eye itself were tinted with a color, then everything would appear to take that color) – similarly, the Brahman/creative void is qualityless, quantityless, substanceless, natureless, formless.
The creative void is truly “Nothing” and “Everything” that is manifest now, is only 1 of its boundless/infinite possibilities.
The creative void/Brahman is even beyond concepts of ONENESS and INFINITY, because both of those are subtle mentations/ways of seeing, and that is only one of the possibilities of the creative void.
I can endlessly describe the creative void, but none of the descriptions ARE IT, because each description is only one of the forms of this void.
All that I write about is about the mystery of this creative void. It is a celebration of its mystery and wonder.
Posted on

Pondering on “Nothing real can be threatened. Nothing unreal exists.”

This aphorism is deeply intriguing to me.
It points at such a profound truth that I can intuitively grasp, but to touch this truth to all of my experience and to understand all of its implications is an endless fascinating contemplation.

I wonder about what this “no-thing thing” is.
This question makes me look.
The deeper I look, the more I silence myself to see finely (like how we hold our breath when threading a needle)
I am trying to silence myself enough to see the substrate space.
At a point, I can see, that along with what I am looking at, I am looking at my own looking.
I then see that, this looking is my own desire, the deepest desire in me, to feel and know the ultimate reality.
So me as the whole having a desire to look at itself (awareness turning back and seeing itself), is a desire like any other, that appears and passes.
Which means, this whole quest to know the ultimate reality is from my own deep desire.

This has mind-boggling implications of the impossibility of me knowing anything.
If all knowing and knowledge accumulation is driven by desire (the desire/heart drives the tuning into that particular manifestation of reality), and if desires appear and pass like all phenomena, then my very ground is swept off my feet.
Reality is even more crazily mysterious than I had previously considered.
So then, the quest of mine to find the ultimate ground is in itself driven by a specific desire, and therefore the manifestation that I paradoxically do by non-doing, is not the ULTIMATE GROUND of experience but rather a ‘Specific experience’.

On the negative side: Everything can be threatened. I mean EVERYTHING.
On the positive side: The truth/real can never be threatened. So nothing of true value is ever lost.

So what is the TRUE REAL? – it is inconceivable, ineffable, unimaginable, unfathomable, undetectable, unnoticeable, un-objectifiable, insubstantiateable. It is “…THAT…”.
Posted on

Entropy and Anti-Entropy, States and Stations

Having a specific meaning/story in your experience is still ‘lower entropy’ than changing meaning/story/timelines themselves.
That total shifting of everything is what is called madness.
In-fact greater the extent of shifts and discontinuities – greater the madness.
Whereas when a specific timeline/meaning is retained day after day (the same persistent story), interestingly whatever theme it may take, it is still be lower entropy.
In a sense ego(a persistent self) retaining continuity at almost all times, represents coherence and anti-entropy.
It seems like any DELTA/CHANGE would involve energy expenditure.
Like if you are in dissolution and discontinuity, then to maintain continuity would take a lot of energy.
Similarly if you are highly solid and coherent, then, trying to access ideas of totally changing realities, again will take a lot of energy for you to maintain such states.
It is like states and stations.
Station A ——-x——– Station B ——–x——– Station C ———–x——– and so on.
For a person in station A wanting to reach station C – he needs 2x free energy.
Station C is State C – for a person in station A.
Similarly a person in station C wanting to reach station A again needs 2x energy.
Station A is a State A – for person in Station C.
So the implication of this is that, it is as hard for a 5-D creature to live in our reality(congealing their vibration into a definite form) as it is for a 3-D create to have a 5-D experience (to dissolute yourself and let go enough to reach that).
The 3-D reality is a state attainment for a 5-D creature and the 5-D reality is a state attainment for a 3-D creature.
Another analogy would be of Steam -> Water -> Ice.
It takes a lot of energy to compress steam into ice, just like it takes a lot of energy to vaporize ice into steam.
So, it can very well be, the Gods in the higher dimensions would need a lot of energy to come down and live in earth, just as someone on earth needs great energy to rise to the dimension of Gods.
Which means, both represent distinct realities, and any DELTA/CHANGE OF STATE would require energy – and probably from a transcendent viewpoint, both are creative forms, and both are equally desirable (the god state and the human/animal state).
Another implication of this would be, if any change of state takes energy, then what you effortlessly are – represents 0 distance.
Trying to be anyone/anything else or in any other state would exhaust you and create another cycle of […recuperation -> expenditure/attaining -> exhaustion…]
So freedom in a counter-intuitive way, represents 0 distance, when you remain exactly as you are (If you do not do that, you exhaust that freedom energy by moving elsewhere).
If you are an animal, you stay exactly as that.
If you are a God, you stay exactly as that.
Any attempt to move away from your natural state, will enter dualistic cycles, and there will be periods of seeking/attaining recuperation/exhaustion.
Posted on

The connection between power and resistance

The experience of power is possible only when overcoming resistance.
Power is when you push(force) against a resistant force – could be a medium/field/object etc.
So power needs resistance.
If there is no resistance, power is irrelevant.

Power also needs separation.
Power is a relational quality between 2 separate forces.
The relation of one force with another force.
Posted on

Are creative and destructive forces symmetric?

Initially, I figured that, creative and destructive forces are not symmetric.
The reasoning was that, I saw creative forces as anti-entropic, and destructive forces as entropic.
With that definition, definitely, the creative forces win over the destructive forces.
Because if the destructive forces won, we would not have anything, we would have ‘nothing’, we would not even have the ‘something’ you see all around you.
If the creative forces won, suppose, then we would have ‘everything’ and nothing would ever be lost or destroyed.
From this reasoning, it followed that, life/love is winning over death/loss, that is why all the creation(something) around you even exists.
Another way, to look at is that existence(life) wins over non-existence(death).

But then, this reasoning though it makes sense logically, I always intuitively felt something was off.
Because, by the law of duality everything is bipolar, and therefore creation and destruction would have to be symmetric.
So for a long time I was unable to reconcile the law of duality and the conclusion I had logically come to that anti-entropy is winning over entropy or creation is winning over destruction.

Today, I had this insight that gave me much more clarity and a new perspective.
The logical conclusion I had come to was based on IMAGES of “Nothing” and “Everything” – which were all abstract concepts.
But then I dropped all these images, and looked at actual experience.
I saw that all that there was, was flow/change.
(Note: Even flow/change are concepts but concepts that are closer to our experiential reality)
So imagine a flow:
(infinity)…1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6…(infinity)
From this flow perspective, there is creation and destruction at every moment.
The concept of symmetry does not even arise here, because there is only ONE SPACE in which all is happening.
So creation and destruction are simultaneous and total at each moment.
It is not half creation and half destruction.
At every moment there is simultaneous 100% (total) creation and 100% (total) destruction.
For instance, in the flow shown above, when 1 changes to 2, seen from the point of view facing 1, 1 disappears and dies, seen from the point of view facing 2, the new is born. But both happen simultaneously and are 1 event.

Later I realized, that the previous understanding was 4-D based.
I can take this even further to the 5th dimension, to the level of understanding where we can realize entire timelines are spawned and changed in the NOW.
We are the NOW(5-D), dreaming multiple timelines in the NOW.
To visualize this, it is like:
NOW … –Timeline1———Timeline2——–Timeline3— … NOW
And if I zoom into Timeline1, we would get back our 4-D spectrum:
(infinity)…1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 6…(infinity)