You are hereForums / Duality / The Radius of the Three Contexts of Appearance, Part One.

The Radius of the Three Contexts of Appearance, Part One.


24 replies [Last post]
RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:

(This conversation continues at these links, but the introduciton is here.  

http://nevernothere.com/forum/world-radius-three-contexts-appearance-part-two  

http://www.nevernothere.com/forum/possibilities-radius-three-contexts-appearance-part-three

 

We get much sharing over the years on NNH,  and the phrase that stands out most often is some form of “there is no separation”.  I want to question what it is that might be practical in that realisation.

My question supposes that we all have some basic necessities to remain alive.  I guess that I am saying that we all have to live.  Those that profess no-separation might say that we don’t have to live, that we are lived.  I will go ahead with my proposition anyway, without getting tangled in too many abstractions.  Or I’ll leave those abstracts for later.

What are some basics of life, based on perception? 

  • Something exists.
  • Perception of what exists is an unknown mix of the existential and what we think about it.
  • Life is always moving, death is always still.
  • Life is a multiplicity.

What are the basics of life, based on assumptions?

  • If nothing exists, then perceptions don’t exist, but they do.
  • There seems to be no way to get outside of perceptions to verify what they are.
  • We can never know what part of our perceptions are existing and what part are interpretation.
  • Interpretation tends to verify itself as real.
  • At least the interpretation part of perception could be classified as illusion.
  • It must take constant movement to sustain life.
  • Movement presupposes space to move in, therefore life only exists in space.
  • It must take that multiplicity to benefit all, and make nature work.

What are the basics, based on preferences?

  • That Life is valuable.
  • That Multiplicity is valuable.
  • Perceptions different from my own should be honoured.

The Three Contexts of Appearance (coming just below) are perceived, which indicates that they are perceived by humans each standing in one of the three contexts.  The view from each context is different, but the life that is receiving those perceptions is valuable. Therefore it can be considered necessary to the whole from where it perceives.

 

The first context to consider is perhaps the last to be discovered.  Since this is the question, i’ll arbitrarily put it first.  It is encapsulated by those who say that there is no separation.  This is a very subtle context, not readily apparent to all.  It is an expanded state that is achieved by becoming less grounded.  Grounded and expansion are sort of opposites.  They are both an energy phenomenon in the body, and also authored by mental states.  Groundedness is knowing where you are, and by our earlier assumptions that is mostly an interpretation (a made up illusion).  The expanded state is not knowing anything for sure, and therefore our sensitivities become expanded as a survival mechanism.  This state can come a little at a time, or through some unexplainable experience, that can be quite shocking.

Expanded could be less of an illusion than grounded, but we don’t know if subtler forms of belief are just as misleading as gross forms. Maybe they’re even more so since they are less visible.  Grounded could get boring, or it could produce impulsive actions that are destructive to self and others.  Expanded has its own fears and worries, and it is less functional in society.  So it tends to be self-destructive.

The second context of appearances is perhaps the first to be discovered.  It is “I” the individual.

  • I have a body with strengths and weaknesses, sickness and health. 
  • I have feelings and emotions that produce (or are driven by) thoughts and interpretations.  I have some level of anxiety and survival concern.
  • I live and function (or don’t function) in a family and a society.
  • I have a certain quantum of luck being born and raised in a society with well-being and justice.  Or I exist in deprivation, arbitrariness, and perhaps in a war-torn, tragic environment.
  • I have a self image that aids or inhibits how I function and interact with my surroundings and relationships.
  • I have a rule book of behaviour that is based on the memory of my history, feelings and experiences, and it may be rather hard-nosed and inflexible.  It sometimes seems to be hard wired into my body.

The third context is I live in the world.

  • This world is made up of resources, and people (which are also resources), and economic flows (also deemed resources).
  • I don’t understand these flows albeit there seems to be escalating conflict about all of them.
  • At one time many of us believed that the world was big enough for all these movements with relative safety islands, but now we are not so sure.
  • It sometimes seems best to “be expanded” (oblivious) about that, but greater and greater shocks break into our protective fog.
  • We are perplexed by the separation of wealth, and the exponential trend where this is verified.  We don’t know what can come of this as we see environmental destruction and injustice.
  • We understand that some people no longer value their own lives, and they use up their own body to destroy others.  
  • We wonder how their life could be that bad to discard it, or if they are just crazy, or if something else is happening that we are not informed about or don’t understand.
  • We like to believe that there does exist value, and that it can triumph, not as a victory but through including.

 

Context Two knows about itself, but maybe very little about the others.

Context Three knows about context Two, and thinks that it has mastered it.

Context One knows about two and three, but maybe is not so active in them.  Perhaps they have arrived in context one as a reaction against failure in context two or three.

 

Our earlier premise is that all three contexts are vital to the functioning and survival of this planet.  We might assume that there is a part to play in each context for each person, if only to be informed and speak what is right for them.

It might have been useful for some people to jump between these contexts to either aid-with or avoid the problems encountered in the other.  Each context might be used as a justification for engaging in one of the other contexts.

 

My questions are:

Are there any contexts that I left out?

What is the right balance of activity for an individual in each of these three contexts?

What is the possibility for individuals residing in each context to be empowered and be active in the others?

What is the radius of the context that you prefer, to reach and make difference in the other contexts?

What is the role of context one, and what is the value or practicality of knowing that there is no separation?

How do you make “there is no separation” into a contribution to yourself, your family, community, nation and world, (race, religion, poor people, or any other category that you care to add)?

 

Thank you for your contribution to these questions.

0
Your rating: None
n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Hey Richard

I am interested in your ideas here and I will give some responses in a few days.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
ok,..back to your questions Richard

First of all the reason why we ask questions in the first place is because we cannot find any answers. And since everything is connected to everything else seamlessly - any answer would automatically be in the question, for what Why would one seamless whole need to question anything. It would be like a tree asking it's leaves why they exist.

Seeking answers that are not there is a futile exercise unique to humans.And still the questions go on.

Take away the question and there is your answer.

Life is one moving unit working on automatic pilot all by itself as one - Life's co-pilot is artificial - it is this pilot that think it is the one in the driving seat - it thinks it is the one who is alive, but the thought I am alive is a phantom thought...it's a dead thought. And the dead cannot touch the living.

We simply cannot know we are alive, we only assume we are alive.Any thought about life creates a knower, and the thought about a knower creates the known- these are dead thoughts because there is no knower or known other wise why would we always be asking questions? If there is no knower how can anything be known. The only known we know is that we don't know and is why we make it all up. Life is basically fictional, that we believe is real.

And that is why this artificial entity asks endless questions because it is looking for something that does not and has never ever existed except as imagined.
Life is recording everything as it goes along, there is nothing original since the original face cannot be seen, so we are just like a living tape recorder playing endlessly the same old regurgitated information over and over and we think it's new -but it is not new, it's just something old wearing a different perfume. There is nothing actually there. Nothing you think is yours is yours, it's all second hand knowledge, and no body notices this, they think they came up with the new idea, this is how deluded the human mind is, because there is no mind.

Life is death - Death is life.

This is not ready to be accepted by mainstream conditioned society and this lack of understanding the bigger picture is the cause all our misery, confusion, and disfunction which will ultimately be our destruction.

We have created our beliefs, and our beliefs will either see us down a path of mutual understandings or will be the cause of our demise.

There is no such thing as enlightenment, separation, depression,happiness,pleasure, pain, loneliness, sadness, hunger, poverty, problems, or any thing else unless there is the belief in these things, it is the belief that brings these things into reality, but they are dead thoughts, they do not exist literally, they are illusions. Life does not have these feelings, we do, the thought processing mechanisms, but these are illusions.

If we are searching for happiness it's because we are sad, happiness created sadness, and so we are always trying to escape this beautiful moment where happiness and sadness does not exist. We believe we are the sad feeling instead of the space in which the feeling arises, and that is our problem.
We create our own problems for fear of being bored out of our brains, we cannot deal with the nothingness we are so we create things to fill it, and then believe those are who we are.Then the belief that we have created become habits and then addictions and we cannot do with out them, it's what makes us feel alive, we are basically doomed.

We cling to these dead ideas because we think they are alive and from that belief we endorse our own life, we think we are alive because we are feeling and believing in these ideas. So we are creating our own hell, and only we can get out of it.

We cannot change the world out there, we can only change our reaction to thought, because the world out there is built on thought, and thoughts are dead.

There is no way out of this mess that we have ourselves created. There is no way out now it's too late.
The only way out is to die before you die and just allow life to flow as it will without trying to manipulate or control it.

Nature will use our corpses to feed other living organisms and the transfer of energy will go on to creating another perfect species.

We as humans are incapable of creating a perfect species out of ourself.Everything we've ever done has had the opposite effect of what we were trying to achieve in the first place. We are slow suiciding and do not have the energy or will power to do anything about it.Simply because we are hooked on our own self serving pleasures, take them away and just watch the chaos ensue, so we are stuck in some kind of hiatus of what to do about anything.

Look around and see the mess we have made, the hole we have dug is too deep we cannot get out. Nature doesn't care about us silly pretentious humans, she will probably be relived to see the back of us to be honest. I mean look at what we've done....

I guess we missed our chance....we basically blew it.

Those that have awakened and see through the illusion of life have nothing to lose, they were only here for the free ride anyway. They're already dead.
You cannot lose what you have never had.

Here is a very good video to watch Richard, I highly recommend you do if you want to deeply understand the concept of oneness without a second.

We all know we do not exist literally, instinctively, but since we are here in this unavoidable matrix, we might as well enjoy the ride, we have no choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOCaacO8wus

From belief to clarity.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Wowee Melanie, I’m so surprised.

Although I have not read all of your many posts, I do remember reading that you considered yourself with a very “up” sensibility, and that you rebounded easily from every challenge.

1. You’ve just come up with a decidedly FLAT piece of reasoning, where I see no air to create any kind of a bounce at all.  No reason to build anything, career, romance, partnership, family, housing, dreams, hobbies.  Just go on disability assistance and lie down, maybe type a few lines here and there searching for agreement.  I know that you hate people to observe anything about you, but what each person says is such an important indicator.  In my experience one’s words are one’s mirror for who they are in this moment.  (I hope that you can get up off the floor after this one?)

2. I’ll leave all that for a moment and say that of course I intend this discussion to be a slow process, and done step by step.  If  we carefully watch what we are saying, maybe we can all discover a new way of looking at it.  And of course if we do consider or adopt a new way, it must be simplified, more streamlined, or somehow give us more room to manifest who we are, or why bother.

3. I would like to rethink some of my original premises.  Can all of our statements be given the authority of one or more of these?

  • Statements from Perceptions
  • Statements from Assumptions
  • Statements from Preferences

In this way we can each relate to our own  P.A.P’s and get some sort of common ground, (scientific) “measure of repeatability” within our different experimenters.

Are there any other places from which to receive our ideas?  If we read it in a book, then it is in the Assumption category, isn’t it?

Perhaps we can say that we had a Direct Experience or direct knowing.  Kind of like, “God told me so.” 

O.K. we can use D.E. too, but recognising that it is all but meaningless to anyone else, even though it may have proven key to running our own lives.  So here we devolve into talking to ourselves.  If we also want to be talking so someone else, we should have some strong statements coming out of the first three P.A.P’s. (perception/assumption/preference).

4. Let me move on to another presumption that I made.  Many many people take a hierarchical (linear) view of my three contexts and of the world. They say that one part is inferior to another.  Kind of like the primitive, the post modern, and the illumined.

I have proposed a holistic alternative saying that they are all equally important, (for the survival of the planet).  I note that they all appear, so who’s to say that they are not each essential.  (I don’t have to say “God doesn’t make mistakes” or any such.)  But Nature is in a balance with a lot of diversity.  I think that mankind has sufficiently proven that we upset that balance by eliminating or decreasing the diversity. (That is an observation and perception, not an assumption nor preference.)

From this I say that perceptions from each of the three contexts should be honoured with the same weight, and not discounted by those who think that they are more in-the-know.  

Of course I do not know any such thing as reality or for a fact.  I am just proposing a holistic view, that does not confer the right to discount any other player.  If you want to discount them, then please just acknowledge that.  With that I’ll make a few comments about the beginning of your post.

5.  Your early premise is that we create questions because we can not find the answers.  Then you strike (for me) a truism, saying that any answer is in the question.  Later you say that answers are not (never) here, so it is futile, and that the ultimate answer is in taking away all questions.  If a tree would ask why its leaves exist, the tree would improve.  I believe some trees have asked, in that now their leaves always face the moving sun to improve photosynthesis.

When you speak of seamless nature, I take it that you feel nature (existance) is always ever complete.  I make the complete opposite hypothesis.  I say that nature is not only incomplete, that it is completely void.  There is no existence other than the questioner, and that the question is the basic creative act that has authored the whole universe.  I say that the Question IS God or IS the Creator, not separate from the questioner, (asker).  It may be only a premise like yours, (but opposite)? Let's see where it leads to in this discussion. Again, my different premise is a creative act, that gives a different result.

6. So then I am saying that if you ask crap questions you create crap answers, which make for a crap existence in a crap universe. So questioning must be the most important responsibility on the planet.  Let’s look at a few statements:

  • Life is automatic pilot, (why bother living it?)
  • The thought that I am alive, is a dead thought. 
  • (So life equals death, no use to separate movement from final stasis.)
  • We assume we are alive with no capacity to know that.
  • The dead cannot touch the living. (they are one and the same as stated in many places in this narrative.)

You get the gist of this.  Most of it is not anything from P. A. or P.   Maybe some where there is a “God told me so” or something to initiate it all.  After that it is a circular logic that feeds upon itself, and will always give the same result. Only that result is in deeper and deeper shades of grey, until it is out of sight, out of perception.  Kind of like your lower predictions about the world that have absolutely no end-game.

You say the questioner is looking for something that does not and has never existed, except as imagined (questioned).  

This statement is my point, Questioning IS Creation.  You might come back that this isn’t reality.  But that is the lived reality for 8 billion people.  I say you can’t out-vote them from your high chair (or highchair).

I’ll leave it here for now, and Thanks.

n/a
melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Reply to Richard

You say: ''
1. You’ve just come up with a decidedly FLAT piece of reasoning, where I see no air to create any kind of a bounce at all. No reason to build anything, career, romance, partnership, family, housing, dreams, hobbies. Just go on disability assistance and lie down, maybe type a few lines here and there searching for agreement. I know that you hate people to observe anything about you, but what each person says is such an important indicator. In my experience one’s words are one’s mirror for who they are in this moment. (I hope that you can get up off the floor after this one?)''

______

Response: It's only flat to you because I'm not here I am only acting as a figment of your imagination. You cannot expect to bounce of something that is not there so it's difficult to reach each other.

There is absolutely every reason to build all these things you mentioned here, career, romance, partnership, family, housing, dreams, hobbies. As long as you remember this is all part of the dream we dream for ourselves. The dream is all there is, there is no dreamer. Right now I am in the dream but not participating any more because of injury which has left me unable to work within the society. I still have a pair of fully functional hands which I use at home doing many other projects including writing on this forum. So not sure what you mean by lying down with disability assistance. Neither am I expecting anyone to agree with me, I'm simply writing my own personal experiences which are just opinions like every other opinion.

And no, I don't like other people projecting their thoughts and opinions onto me just because they don't like the tone or quality of my posts, in truth they have no clear idea of and never will have any true description about me. We cannot judge a person by the words they use, it is no indicator of the authenticity of that person.

For example: someone may look as miserable as sin and say angry stuff, but that doesn't make that person a miserable angry person, in fact they could be the most caring compassionate loving person ever. We simply would never know another person, so to presume to know someone is projection and has no foundation for real truth whatsoever.

From belief to clarity.

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Reply to Richard

You say: ''When you speak of seamless nature, I take it that you feel nature (existance) is always ever complete.''

_______

Response: I speak of a seamless nature as in it's all one unconnected whole without separation. There is no question present in oneness. If there were any questions - oneness would already know the answers as any question would be about itself anyway. Therefore, only itself could answer,for who else is going to give an answer? that's what I meant.
Only those who are lost need look at the conceptual mind map which is the sense of self's only reference.
The self and it's map are the same phenomenon.

From belief to clarity.

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Reply to Richard

You say: '' Life is automatic pilot, (why bother living it?)
The thought that I am alive, is a dead thought.
(So life equals death, no use to separate movement from final stasis.)
We assume we are alive with no capacity to know that.
The dead cannot touch the living. (they are one and the same as stated in many places in this narrative.)''

______

Response: Life is living itself, no one is living it. When it is living itself, the idea ''why bother living it'' is separation, and it's this idea of separation that causes all the mess and problems in the world in the first place.

No we cannot know we are alive. No one can experience being alive. Just as you cannot experience being dead, these are just concepts and ideas that do not belong to anyone, they are thoughts.

Life and Death are the same thing - they just differ in appearance. Nothing ever moved, it just appears to move.

No-thing can touch life or death, they are one and the same. That's what is meant in the saying ''if you see the buddha on the road kill him.''

From belief to clarity.

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Reply to Richard

You say: This statement is my point, Questioning IS Creation. You might come back that this isn’t reality. But that is the lived reality for 8 billion people. I say you can’t out-vote them from your high chair (or highchair).''

____

Response: Not sure what you mean by questioning is creation.

Except to say our dreams are built from the imagination. But there is no creator here except as imagined.8 billion dreams are like single bubbles - bubbles can burst and this is known as enlightenment -where is the bubble now? was it ever a bubble, or just a dream?

No one can out-vote another bubble.Bubbles often collide with each other, and when that happens, their seemingly separate bubbles merge in to one another. They have not only collided with each other but have collided with the infinite only to realise there never was a single bubble.

From belief to clarity.

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Reply to Richard

You say: ''Kind of like your lower predictions about the world that have absolutely no end-game.''

____

Response:I see no change in human evolution for the better. While our technology is evolving beyond all expectation we as human sentient being are being made redundant in the process. It's self evident. There is no future for humans. The machines are taking over. We invented machines to make our life easier without realising we are not built that way. And now we are so helplessly dependant on our technology the whole world would collapse without it.

From belief to clarity.

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Reply to Richard

You say: ''Your early premise is that we create questions because we can not find the answers. ''

_______

Response: We ask questions as part of the act of validating our own existence, it's like we are ever attempting to seek our self, it's the self seeking itself that's all. It's dream building at best,it's how we keep the imagined spacetime continuum alive in our thoughts. And is why there are no answers to the questions we ask, it would be like a dream character asking another dream character in a nightly dream questions about it's authenticity.

From belief to clarity.

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
hmm, I don't know where to start Richard.

There's a lot to think about here, not able to take all this in one go so will answer in small step by step method.

Your question: ''My question supposes that we all have some basic necessities to remain alive. I guess that I am saying that we all have to live. Those that profess no-separation might say that we don’t have to live, that we are lived.''

___________

My arbitrary opinionated answer: Those that say there is no separation are seeing the bigger picture albeit imagined. They see through the illusion of separation via the knowledge they have which was invented using thought.

They can describe the reality of the bigger picture as being like a jigsaw puzzle that is made of many separate pieces and once pieced together the whole comes into view. They can use this analogy to see that this is how reality works.

From the reference point of the individual it can only see one frame at a time which appears as their own unique frame of reference.They sense they are one piece of the puzzle but at the same time they relate this piece with the whole picture from their knowledge of the jig-saw analogy.

They know the whole must exist because they are experiencing the piece, they couldn't know the piece without relating to the whole. The pieces cannot access the whole because once the whole becomes fragmented it cannot become whole again, it would be like putting a cracked egg back in it's shell. So the whole can only experience itself from an individual frame of reference. This whole idea is imagined, because Life is Life.

There is no one to experience Life - Life is the experiencing. There is no one to experience Life just as there is no one to experience death. So we don't even know we are alive, we only assume we are via thought.

There is no such thing as the thoughtless state as that would require someone there to witness it... So there is continual stream of thought which keeps the illusion alive. Some thoughts are very subtle,others are more gross. The gross thoughts are present when there is the desire to create something material like a car or a new building, or we may desire to remember something from the past so we dip into our knowledge on demand memory bank to retrieve the data. The subtle ones are the ones that we don't realise are there, those thoughts are the ones that keep life ticking over in a way it is able to function in a sensible coherent recognisable flow.
Our brain is recording life as we go along, we live from memory which is dead, but brought to life every time we think of it.

So it seems everything is functioning on auto-pilot. Most of what we do we do without thinking about it.Reality is one whole unit. That it appears fragmented is an idea born of thought which is arising within the whole structure itself as a self perpetuating phenomena.

It is practical to know this and anyone can know it. To know this is known as the peace that passes all understanding.

I'll answer some more of your questions later Richard.

From belief to clarity.

marcus's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 9 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 02/14/2010
Posts:
Melanie, To bring more

Melanie,
To bring more clarity to your writing
The thoughtless state is understood by the witnesser, who witnesses both the intermittent illusory thought filled state and the thoughtless state. The thought-filled state is not continuous, because if thought-filled state were continuous the mind will be exhausted and would be unable to function. Both, subtle and gross thoughts are intermittent and they keep the mind ticking but not life. Life flows continuously, spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably, while the mind keeps ticking intermittently, spontaneously, uncontrollably and unpredictably. The expected happens unexpectedly without a cause and the unexpected too happens spontaneously without a cause. Life makes the brain record memory as life goes along, the mind lives from memory which is dead (meaning the past), but is brought to think that it controls life in the present and will in the future as well every time memory is brought in to function by life.

www.academy-advaita.com

Marcus Stegmaier

melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
marcus thanks

..........

From belief to clarity.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Hi Melanie

Thanks for these replies.  I do intend to discuss my understanding of these three contexts of experiencing in a practical way.

But first I should talk again on some of the foundations for our speaking.  To have a discussion of any kind, some common ground has to be found on which to build each, our hypothesis.  If we don’t agree on anything, then we could still build various hypothetical models based “possible foundation agreements", and assess the ramifications of each option.

1. I started by saying that something exists, and that we can perceive some of it, sometimes.  (I did say that we can’t know what percent of our perception is our own interpretation and what part is the perceived.)  I also said that life is a multiplicity that is always moving.  These I called ✔︎ perceptions.  They are open for all to witness, with or without beliefs about them.

Then I said that we can also make some ✔︎ assumptions about those perceptions, and we can have some ✔︎ preferences based on our adopted values.

Those are three categories of statements, Perception, Assumption and Preference, or P, A, P’s.  Then I added a fourth category called ✔︎ Direct Experience.  The trouble with having a discussion based on DE is that we are left with only assertions, and no argumentation nor logic tools.

Admitted, this forum does have some interchanges based only on counter assertions. But they are never very interesting, no matter what the subject matter.  Even if your viewpoints are based on assertions, there could also be some P, A, P’s that back those assertions up.  Then you can still engage in a discussion that someone else can relate to.  That is what I am probing to discover.

a) For instance if I say something exists, and you say no, there is no thing that exists. (Of course you have not inspected every possible thing.)

b) If I say that you can have perceptions, and you say no, there are no perceptions.

c) If I say life is movement in space, and you say moving and stillness are the same thing, and there is no such thing as space.  (Life equals death.)

d) If I say life is multiple, and you say no, life is single.

Where is the basis of any discussion?  If you choose to build an argument that all perceptions are an illusion, then I realise you cannot use perceptions to  back that up.  Every one of the above statement/counter statement is contrary to how the world’s population sees it.  There are just a couple of (perhaps) your friends that talk like that.

You still could prove there are no perceptions by blindfolding yourself and driving around the block.  You could even claim from your hospital bed that accidents are an illusion.  

2.  Then a discussion is supported by some kind of logic.  The many kinds of Logic are all a sequence of some sort.  this-so-then-that.  Some logic is tight, with no frivolous claims and some is very loose, with little or no meaning.  But all logic is based on time, and based on cause and effect, or repeatable sequence.

If somebody wants to have a discussion that there is no cause and effect, there is no sequence, there is no repetition, then one trouble is that everyone in the world that reads it, will know that you live your daily life based on all those things that you are denying.  All recognition is repetition, so if you do know a door from a window, or a house from a rock, you live in mind/time.

3.  Then your aim must be to make your words meaningless.  You live one way and you say the opposite.  What is the value of talking?  Turn on the electric fan if you want wind.  It is a given that anyone has the power to make their words meaningless for themselves.  But they don’t have the power to make my words meaningless for me.  In fact one person who’s words have meaning disproves millions of persons who’s words are meaningless.

What do meaningful words signify?  You say something (usually about yourself) and it happens.  You say you’ll be on time for a meeting, and you are.  In fact, my words all happen in the very high 90’s percent.  That is done in two ways.  ✔︎ Make a concerted effort to Do what you say.  ✔︎ Never say what you don’t intend to do.  It is not just a power to predict the future.  It is also a total integration with what is happening. However it goes, that’s what I want, that’s where I can move from equally.  Gradually  gradually, that dynamic becomes more powerful.  At a certain point you no longer have fear nor anxiety.  You know life is full of unknowns, but not everything.  You accept the unknowns, work in the areas you are practised, and notice that these abilities grow.  You move by your word, not by the profit motive or conventional wisdom.  Nobody can tell you that you lost $1000 by doing that.  It is not how you function.  You may have lost $1000, but you gained your life.

Actually, that is the point of me making this post, and asking for this discussion.

But let’s get practical for having a discussion.  Other posts that Melanie has posted do follow a train of logic.  So what happened to make this discussion different?  (Read this rather long post if you want to see.)

http://nevernothere.com/forum/dilemma-0#comment-8176

4.  I suppose that I have much to say about every one of your statements.

Many statements seek to mystify the action of life from the words and emotions about life.  Like saying angry caustic people could in fact be the most happy contented and compassionate persons.  This ignores the observation that negative expressions take a bodily contraction to get them expressed.  There is definitely a consequence for all bodily contractions. One wouldn’t know that, if they are engulfed in constant contraction.  If one becomes relatively free from contraction, the cost of each contraction is super evident.  That is why the 2nd original context is so important, “I the individual”.  If you fully know “I the individual” you don’t have contractions for more than minutes or seconds.

My meaning of “Creativity is in the questioning” is just that, all that is observed in the world of mankind was created by a question.  Those that do not question, do not create.  They don’t question simply because they have adopted a belief.  You have stated that belief exactly.  What are you missing?  You say nothing, I say everything.

You say that you see no change in human evolution.  But isn’t evolution what you are completely denying?  If time and change are an illusion, why would you base any observation on evolution or the lack of evolution?

Well, Let’s see where we can go from here?

Thanks,

n/a
melanie's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 05/19/2014
Posts:
Richard

Where is the basis of any discussion?

________

Response.

The point of any discussion is to get the person you are talking with to see reality from your point of view in an effort to come to some sort of mutual agreement together. What is often discussed has no relevance to the way things actually are. But we love the sound of our own voices and also it's the social thing to do if you want the act of being human to look convincing and so it further illuminates the illusion keeping it ever more alive.

__________

Richard:You say that you see no change in human evolution. But isn’t evolution what you are completely denying? If time and change are an illusion, why would you base any observation on evolution or the lack of evolution?

___________

Response:

Evolution is a story told by some guy called Darwin...no one witnessed it literally, no one can remember when they first appeared on earth as a single celled piece of algae.All they remember is being born a human.
So based on the evidential residue that we name life we weave a story of that life and name it evolution, so as to make the human story more plausible ..no one ever wrote the story or witnessed it happening, and no one ever notices that no one ever wrote or witnessed it.

Not denying anything, because we've recorded everything either in our brain or in books.

Books and memory are the only proof of our existence and of any activity of the past. Which is dead, so how it could ever have been thought to have happened is beyond my comprehension.

From belief to clarity.

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
I have chosen the three contexts for this topic

We live in all three of them.  If there are other contexts of living, I welcome their introduction.  I have deliberately avoided subjective contexts like comatose, or (what we call) delusional, even though that person might be having nice ongoing conversations with ghosts and teddybears.  Someone could also claim extra-terrestrial status.

1. One thing we might care to acknowledge first is the human tendency to affirm what they like, and deny what they don’t like.  This probably takes place in all of us, sometimes with little regard for any evidence.  Evidence would be based on perceptions that are open for all to have.  Things (the perceptions) might look the opposite, but we can still create a complex (or over-simplified) logic that turns perceptions on their head.

The contexts again are:

§ We all live in the moment, in the mystery of life, that functions effortlessly in a wordless thoughtless world, or even in spite of many thoughts and many words. (Me as the space of possibility).

§ We all live in a family and community that accentuates our human mental-emotional expressions, which we have to learn to deal with successfully or ineptly. (Me as the individual).

§ And we all live in the world, with weather patterns and natural occurrences and the pressure from other (perhaps far away) humans that pollute, make war, attack us or send their refugees. Even our own governments make war and create refugees.  (Me as a part of the planet).

Whether we downplay or deny some or all of these three playing fields, we will all be in them until we die, (as will our children.)  We used to think that the world was big enough that everybody could do their thing, and we had no worry. But now our created walls are wearing very thin, and many millions of people are devastated by world trends, and by the deliberate or mindless actions of others.

2. The point of this thread boils down to what are you going to do about living in these three contexts? Become expressive, just cope with them, or deny them?  But knowing that those whose work tends to marginalise you will continue with their program.

3. Since “Me as the individual” is chronologically the first challenge for the vast majority of people, perhaps it is the best starting place.  Let’s acknowledge that most of those in this vast majority might define this “I” as a thing that has location and substance.  Others use this same concentric definition to prove that there is no I the individual.  They do this because you really can’t land on anything (thought, history, memory or emotion) besides the body, that is this me.  Human awareness also seems capable to leave the body for short trips, so where is the I?

I propose that we leave that concentric definition and adopt a model of a broader locus of perception, where individual stimuli can provoke individual responses.  The evidence of individual perception is that I don’t know what others are experiencing in this moment.  That is the continual reinforcement of the notion of separateness.  It is quite simple, with no leaps of faith or belief.

Really, what’s the difference in how you define the individual?  You must live in this context irregardless.  Why not live in it effortlessly and with the most effectiveness for what you and others desire?  I am not suggesting a course in  “How to make friends and influence people”.

4. What I am suggesting is noticing the interaction of the human tools of thought, belief, emotion and anxiety.  Some of the links are:

  • Action (or inaction) is stimulated by a feeling, emotion or anxiety.
  • Emotion and anxiety are stimulated by thoughts.
  • Thoughts are created by beliefs and a world view.
  • Beliefs are partial and incomplete, (or just plain wrong) and can be looked at with alternative points of view.

When you really experience these links beyond all doubt, you will find that you can continually broaden your belief structure (one step at a time) to give yourself ever more room to create action for positive outcomes.  Finally you are empowered to live in constant satisfaction, and anxieties don’t last for more than seconds.  A life lived like that becomes purer and purer, until you can feel every contraction before it can take hold.

5. Some visits to context one (I the space of possibility) can be useful to realise that the world is bigger than your preconceptions.  The biggest block to moving out of struggle with the context of I the individual is the belief that “my perceptions are true”.  You have to tackle that structure head on to get unstuck from any other repetitive interpretations that you might hold.

However if you get stuck in the context of spaciousness you will never gain mastery in the context of the individual. I would call that a dead end, where one context is misused to deny the others instead of used to master the others.  If you prefer the denial route and say contexts are illusion, then gain illusional mastery in those denied contexts.  Why not, you live there in every minute?

n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Nice job so far

Nice job so far. I don't have much to add at this time. I have read through your posts here a few times, but I am good with sitting back and watching some more to see how this develops.

I do have a logical method I have developed that may be beneficial to this discussion later on. I need to refine and make sure I have critiqued it as much as I can before introducing it here. I plan on using this to develop a strong system of philosophy for Enbrightenment. So, I feel a discussion like this is helpful to me and many others here. Looking forward to more from you on this.

- Jared

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Thanks for your comment Siddha Buddha

I know that you post a lot, but I must confess that I don’t know your views because I have not studied them.  It seems that those posts attract dissension, and tend to go on and on.  I apologise if my impression is wrong.

You ask for time to critique your own thoughts before contributing them.  But I might share that writing is a very good way to “critique yourself” with the aid of the other, (non combative if possible) people.  In this thread I have not commented on a lot on counter points, because I feel that when they are declarative in nature there is not much to say.  One can say “I disagree, or how about this for an alternative point of view”.

Some are saying that words are so meaningless that they can use them in any way they wish with impunity.  I am quite sure that there is a consequence for every word we use.  I might suggest to people what a possible consequence could be.  But it gets into long “tit for tat” threads.

For instance if you say the world is no good or only illusion, you will participate less with what’s happening around you.  Does the world go on perfectly without you?  Sure, I am glad to make your decisions for you, (but remember they all lean toward my advantage).  That is the status of the world nowadays. The term invented by politicians was the “silent majority”.  The silent majority are not in any solidarity, other than their collective disempowerment, resignation and ignorance of what’s happening.  

One premise of this thread is that we go on a search because our everyday world is not working to our liking.  What we find in seeking could relieve us by being an alternative place to hang out, or by making the everyday world work better.  Even if it is not evident that the outer changes, at least I become empowered to make positive actions.

If you have a hierarchical mind-set, then one of these contexts could be preferable to the others.  Then escaping becomes honourable (as a consequence of your belief in hierarchy).  If you have a wholeness mind-set, then all arenas that appear are equally valid.  (Maybe just because they appear, and are in some kind of balance.)

If your thought process defines some things as make-believe, and others as more fundamental, then again you have created a verbal bias that will direct your attention and your actions.  

Let’s say that they are all make-believe.  My point is then you can create “make-believe abilities” in each sector of what we call life, and live in each context on an ever improving basis.  Then there are no red-flag zones that you cannot travel.  You become free to cross all borders.

n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Agreed

Richard: " It seems that those posts attract dissension, and tend to go on and on. I apologise if my impression is wrong."

I agree. I think this is in part to what I call non-dual taboos/dogmas and because I often portray an authoritative voice and talk about things that most people stray away from when talking about Realization, which is not intentional (partially).

It is because of my prior studies in religion, science, philosophy, and the numerous prior conversations over the years that this 'authoritative voice' appears.

I may also be a bit of an ass or seemingly rude as well. This comes from a life long heart burning and yearing to see 'others' alive with Realization. At 5 I decided that I needed more time to understand and learn about humanity because I noticed practically everyone I meet and interacted with was 'dead' (on the inside) in their heart fire, which has always been a strong force in my life.

So, in a way, one could say I am 'bitter' (as Melanie pointed out after I said the same about her). I'm ok with that. However, if you were to ask friends of mine if I am an ass, they would probably laugh at that. This is because almost all of my friends and family are not interested in anything I have to say regarding God, Realization and so on. So, they never really ask questions or talk with me where I would end up pulling the rug from under their feet. I feel like most of them know this and prefer to stay out of those waters.

Richard: "One premise of this thread is that we go on a search because our everyday world is not working to our liking. What we find in seeking could relieve us by being an alternative place to hang out, or by making the everyday world work better. Even if it is not evident that the outer changes, at least I become empowered to make positive actions.

If you have a hierarchical mind-set, then one of these contexts could be preferable to the others. "

This is what I realized as a kid, at 5 years old. I did not feel heart communion with anyone, and my childhood was kinda rough because my parents often fought and it was nasty, but they stayed together and just made it to their 48 year anniversary (pretty amazing). I'm glad they did. So, I do have a hierarchical kind of mind because I feel some ideas hold a greater significance in life verses others. Example: 'unicorns ate my lunch' and 'don't walk in the street you could get run over'. You and I are on the same page (so to speak) in most areas if not all (after much discussion).

I have learned, studied, and engaged in philosphical debates and dialogues, although it is never enough in the philosophy world. This was done with the intention of being able to word and explain Realization to the most intellectual and the least intellectual. It was and is about fine tuning my ability to open Realization (in broader circles of knowledge, beyond traditional ways of writing about this stuff) up beyond the esoteric books and estatic writings of previous Realizers.

I hung out at a prestigous philosophical forum, for multiple years, and had a philosophy mentor whom I studied his writings (Paul Newall - http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php). I promise the crowd there is extremely capable in regards to philosophy and associated disciplines. All of this was work to enable me to be totally prepared for any person that wants to discuss God and Realization.

So, you could say the hierarchical mind set that I have is born from developing the ability to enage the smartest of the smartest, at least that is the intention. This may have pushed much of my wording to feel unattractive to those that don't care about those things or have not spent one moment developing a clear headed approach.

I am also an evidence based kind of person. Thus, one (if they spent time reading my writings) would notice that I 'attempt' to add a scientific quality to the explanations of Enbrightenment. This is partly responsible for my 'authoritative voice'.

I teach this to my children, and teach them to demand evidence and not just accept any old idea, no matter how many people share it. My grandfather often told me, 'don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see'. I love this quote and it has played a role in my time studying and learning different ways to discuss Realization.

This is why I am interested in your effort here to bring some kind of foundation that we can all work from when talking with each other.

For me, I could say that all 3 are valuable, but the least would be assumptions.

Richard: "The contexts again are:

§ We all live in the moment, in the mystery of life, that functions effortlessly in a wordless thoughtless world, or even in spite of many thoughts and many words. (Me as the space of possibility).

§ We all live in a family and community that accentuates our human mental-emotional expressions, which we have to learn to deal with successfully or ineptly. (Me as the individual).

§ And we all live in the world, with weather patterns and natural occurrences and the pressure from other (perhaps far away) humans that pollute, make war, attack us or send their refugees. Even our own governments make war and create refugees. (Me as a part of the planet)."

AND "2. The point of this thread boils down to what are you going to do about living in these three contexts? Become expressive, just cope with them, or deny them? But knowing that those whose work tends to marginalise you will continue with their program."

I choose to live creatively and expressive, to engage and challenge. I don't find just sitting back and waiting for change to happen or that all is already perfect thus nothing to do, but to initiate change, to instigate change, to be change, and to challenge myself and others to live Truth as much as possible. This carries with it many preconceived judgements from others that basically look down on anyone that makes claims of Realization and such. This is what drives the dissension in many of my conversations. So be it. I was prepred for this all the way back when I was 22 years old (now I'm 37), when I decided to begin writing about all of this stuff.

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Thank you Jared for your very open introduction

While others might feel they already know you, I appreciate your intention to introduce yourself to me.

Congratulations, if you’re 37 you have a certain vibrant energy, and should express it however it comes out.  I have NOT had these interests since early childhood, so although I can factor in more decades of experiences, we may be even with these levels of interest.

Let’s say Melanie missed it with bitter, but that a certain natural “disappointment” comes with not finding friends nor family that will engage with what we think of as important.  If they think that you would pull the rug out from under them, you probably already did it.  So chalk it up to relationship inexperience of a youthful enthusiasm, and a belief in following a logic path to the end and “telling it like it is”.

When I refer to hierarchy, I am talking about world views, and in this particular thread the three contexts (unless you come up with a forth).  Yes, a million questions can be made up, and most of them should be thrown out, including any spiritual unicorns or spiritual conundrums.  For example, if you discuss the nature of perception, and give a view that the above 3 contexts are nested, you base your augment on a certain spacial relationship.  Therefore you can never discover much about the truth of space, beyond your original assumption upon which your whole argumentation rests.

Thanks for that link on philosophy.  On some other post I would be interested to hear more about your reception there.

Many claim evidence, but use science only through heresy (reading scientific American or something).  I want to hear your original evidence found by using the scientific method.  I tried to lay some groundwork, citing perceptions, assumptions (that’s where some kind of logic comes in, which is how we must tie perceptions together), and why not values, since we are human and trying to live well.  Admittedly, values are what we are trying to inject into the formula, and not the inate goodness of water, stone and soil.

Maybe we should start out by saying that something about en-brightenment teaching is incomplete.  Otherwise some of its purported goodness would leave a bigger footprint on the planet, and people would be able to “graduate” and not remain failed seekers for decades.  Just to say that our great great great . . . grandfathers knew everything you need to know about enlightenment is blatantly false.

LET’S RECONSTRUCT ENLIGHTENMENT, on this thread and on others.

Fortunately you are not sitting back and waiting for the sky to fall.  To really live truth I think you must construct a “Living Truth”.  Someone would love to engage with you on that endeavour.  I think that it can be done without claiming much of anything, especially not claiming that we are realised (and you others can’t participate).

Tell me more of how it looks to you.

n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Richard: "Many claim

Richard: "Many claim evidence, but use science only through heresy (reading scientific American or something). I want to hear your original evidence found by using the scientific method. I tried to lay some groundwork, citing perceptions, assumptions (that’s where some kind of logic comes in, which is how we must tie perceptions together), and why not values, since we are human and trying to live well. Admittedly, values are what we are trying to inject into the formula, and not the inate goodness of water, stone and soil.

Maybe we should start out by saying that something about en-brightenment teaching is incomplete. Otherwise some of its purported goodness would leave a bigger footprint on the planet, and people would be able to “graduate” and not remain failed seekers for decades. Just to say that our great great great . . . grandfathers knew everything you need to know about enlightenment is blatantly false.

LET’S RECONSTRUCT ENLIGHTENMENT, on this thread and on others."

I started with a body and heart fire. I knew that heart fire was something that had remained the same with me all my life, and it was something that was clear to me even as a child. I knew it was beyond words and, to me, was the only evidence of God I had. I eventually did a start over, and just approached every religion fresh and new.

So, I just looked around for people and places that heart fire was strong or felt transmitted from another. I discovered it at some Christian churches of various denominations - easiest place for me to start in a social context, but they related to heart fire, on average, through illusion (ego). I let heart fire be my guide, my confirmation, and my way of confirming and conducting spiritual knowledge.

Heart fire is my epistemology, my source of knowing - it is God. I noticed heart fire/heart communion with other people found by reading books and watching videos. With this study and meditation, and not avoiding daily life, the (my) body/mind came to life with the fullness of the esoteric anatomy of consciousness/awareness (progressively). I read around through all kinds of people that claimed realization and/or was known for talking about it. I stuck to reading the ones that heart fire/communion was strong with.

This was my method. It was very scientific (to me) and based on the one unchanging reality of consciousness I ever knew. Through this came the development of Enbrightenment. It was the source of my values, morals, and relationships with people, places, and thinigs. Heart fire felt like a living presence of love within me and so love was an easy action for me to express and 'seek' from others, and to base my investigation of life and reality.

I wanted to abandon talking enlightenment because it is so deluded in society, so I created a twist on the word and created a standardized definition. This makes it very difficult for someone to come along and use the word Enbrightenment without there being a source and definition for the word.

Built into the design of Enbrightenment is an openness to an evolutionary and developmentary process that engages in and critically analyzes the language, verbiage, and communication of Enbrightenment. Meaning every thing written about Enbrightenment is subject being criticized and possibly changed. It is designed so that people are challenged to test my testament and to critically analyze the idea for all it's worth. I've been doing this from the beginning, and I am currently reviewing all 6 of my books as part of this process.

From the very start I knew that I would be under scrutiny for all I say, and that for the most part doing any of this was taboo. However, my heart from childhood has the better of me and does not care about the flack. I can 'dish it out' as well, and those kinds of interactions are me not caring about a person trash talking me, love triumphs. I tell it like it is, so to speak, and as you kind of referred to as well. I understand people get their feelings hurt or feel like I the one who is the jerk. But, I have this life and it is short, no time for the riff raff.

Enbrightenment is a modern reconstruction of enlightenment outside of any one particular tradition, and from someone in the west who is not from any lineage of living Realizers. So, you wanting to do that here sounds good to me, I have plenty of experience in thinking about this subject.

- Jared

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
CONTINUE TO CONSIDER THESE THREE CONTEXTS

We’re saying that “I the individual” might be the first context that we all experience.  There might be some baby mentality before that, but how is that relevant to this life?  There are still those three contexts for the baby, but also with caretakers (parents) to guide the baby through them.  Now we don’t have the caretakers.

In other places I have written that every action is provoked by a feeling.  I think this is also a good place to start here.  The mechanism of moving away from this first context into the others, is provoked by a feeling.  To stimulate this movement, the feeling must be some form of discontent.  I will further identify this discontent as a perceived limit to my effective actions.

The perceived landing place of such a search, must in some way dissolve that feeling.  The two possibilities to dissolve an inadequate feeling are, become more adequate in that context, or ignore and deny the context of that inadequacy.  I am opting for the first solution, and writing to caution against the second solution.

These negative feelings occur in all three of our considered contexts.  So we are faced with becoming more adequate to manoeuvre our life within each of these three places.  Choosing some foundation assumptions will alter our conclusions.

  • I prefer a wholeness view, where each context that appears is equally important.
  • I prefer a synergy view, where skill in any one context adds to a greater skill in the other two contexts.
  • I prefer the humanity as a community view, where we owe it to the whole to become as proficient as possible, for the good of that whole.

Many of these wholeness arguments are also adopted by others, but they are used in an antithetical way to justify ignoring some contexts for the purpose of a quicker elimination of the negative feeling.  They call it the elimination of suffering.

What are the elements of gaining mastery in the realm of “I the individual”?  First of all notice that this context and the limitations therein are made of both perceptions and interpretations.  These two cross over a lot, (as reality and imagination), and are linked to negative and positive emotions and to anxiety and fear.  If you could sort out your emotive nature, you would come a long way to having a clearer perception of the current situation.  This would inevitably lead to more effective action.

The link to watch is in what you say.  Actually what you say is always about you.  In everything said there is a space wherein you reside.  The smaller that space, the more pinched you feel, and the louder are the resultant emotions.  Perhaps "louder" is not the correct adjective. Because if there is no space for you, you will be depressed, and that is not loud, although it controls your every (in)acton. Because perceptions all have an interpretive fraction, you have the power to rethink your interpretation.  If you gradually learn to broaden your interpretation, you will create more and more space for you in your world view, and your emotional quotient will decrease.

That is all there is to it.  Whether this is fantasy, illusion, Maya or Samskara, you can begin to soften it and to master it.  Your individual emotional balance will translate to more ability both in the world context, and give more perception in the context of spaciousness and possibility.

Therefore the criteria of synergy is well met.

n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
logical method

I developed a logical method that says the process of ego death and Realization is basically a natural law of existence. This is what I was referring to a few comments back. I will look to post it here tomorrow. Then it would be nice to see us try to tear it apart.

- Jared

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

RichardMiller's picture
User offline. Last seen 20 weeks 6 days ago. Offline
Joined: 09/20/2009
Posts:
Hi Jared,

I skipped over your 2nd post above when reading this last one. Thanks for these above comments too, which I now acknowledge down here.

Heart Fire is something everyone doesn’t get to follow.  I take it to be a strong feeling, maybe in the chest, sort of like a “dowsing rod” in the search for what satisfies.  I won’t say search for the truth, since what’s the point in glorifying it.  It sounds like it is already very desirable without hype or decorating it with superlatives.  I often talk about action is motivated by a feeling.  Here is a perfect example.  What a great luck to be blessed by this shining lamp post.

I also talk about following a feeling and moving step by step into freedom.  Only my feeling can start at zero.  Or otherwise it can be made up of aberrations from zero, when people go off into some form of “tilt”.  Actually there is no zero feeling, except in death.  But the human is used to monitoring only the change in feeling.  In science we call it “Delta P” or “Delta T”, change in pressure or change in temperature.  It is this Delta-feeling that we surely notice.  For those encased in layers of armour, it is difficult to elicit or feel any changes.

If it took a Heart Fire to get people into movement, I'd  say very few would budge an inch.  So building zero into my method, gives absolutely everyone a starting point.

My method would have many similar elements:

  • With this study (sort of gets to be a habit),
  • Not avoiding daily life (engagement is a key),
  • Come to life with fullness, (follow the feeling),
  • Anatomy of awareness (I would leave esoteric out of it),
  • After all, you’ll find it is just normal,
  • Progressively (this is key, a little more open than yesterday),
  • Living presence of Love. (compassion builds and flowers),

People have used “The Bright” before, so there is a precedence.

  • developmentally process
  • engages
  • critically analyses
  • language, verbiage and communication

Enbrightenment is open to critical thinking and change.  It is a “Live Definition.”

All people don’t pick up on all communications, nor when received from all delivery systems.  There will be this fall-off with anything, whether new or old.  I understand you, in that I sometimes give one last try to retrieve someone back into conversation with “shock value”.  I guess they rarely get shocked.  Well at least I tried.

On this particular thread I intended to examine 3 contexts of living, which I call Separate Individual, Community and World, and Space of Possibility.  Here I introduced the arguments, and started to talk about the individual.

I am thinking to launch into the World, but wondering if this is already too long, and if I should have three threads which are the three chapters.  This probably wouldn’t be the best showcase for all of your discoveries that you want to talk about.

How about your reflections on the Context of the Individual with regard to your discoveries.  What do you think of my three foundation assumptions from above, that will alter our conclusions?

  • I prefer a wholeness view, where each context that appears is equally important.
  • I prefer a synergy view, where skill in any one context adds to a greater skill in the other two contexts.
  • I prefer the humanity as a community view, where we owe it to the whole to become as proficient as possible everywhere, for the good of that whole.
n/a
Mukti Da's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 year 5 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 01/19/2011
Posts:
Hey

Richard: "...to examine 3 contexts of living, which I call Separate Individual, Community and World, and Space of Possibility."

I think you can eliminate the word 'separate' and just use individual. That word includes some kind of independence, but not separation.

I like community playing the role of an independent (like an individual) organization, while world transcends the community yet includes it. Also, one can think of world as transcending the Earth and playing role of universe or multi-verse. 'World' seems to recognize there is a dynamic within society and government, and the balanced play of both working together. Both independently and collectively.

Furthermore, governments have the power to literally destroy life on Earth, however, this has not happened. The Earth itself transcends goverments, and no government or society would exist if the conditions of Earth were to change enough.

Space of Possibility Feels like this idea recognizes that life is not like cogs in cogs, and that a sense of freedom is every where among people. That we can change our direction for better or worse, we can relate to each other and the Earth environment in harmonious or destructive ways.

I feel like all 3 Contexts are fit for elicudating a practical philosophy for life, one that works towards a kind of harmony with each other. I do notice that Realization may be a 4th context, but it would have to transcend and include the 3 Contexts in order to work with this system.

Let's be clear that this is a system of metaphysics at best (like a theory but ultimately cannot all be proven - some elements are beyond a scientific critique). Here is a quote which should help us clear away questions about what we are discussing.

"Metaphysics (one's explanation of reality) is the fundamental, or
controling, element of philosophy. Metaphysics determines epistemology and
axiology. That is, the way you explains reality will determine your view
of knowledge and of value. In other words, you tell me what your view of
reality is (i.e., what you think is the meaning of life and the universe)
and I can then predict how you think knowledge is to be gained and
what you think is of value.

http://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/philblfs-with-epis.html"

In presenting any system of philosophy one needs to answer 3 main questions.

1: Metaphysics (type of existence-reality)
2: Epistemology (knowledge and how do we have any)
3: Axiology (value and beauty)

I think what you have presented thus far is more along the lines of answering questions regarding epistemology and axiology, but does not do much for some metaphysics; the context of existence as a whole. I assume you want to clear that part up (if ever) after the other two topics have been clearly (within our means) elicudated.

We can also use logic to help us keep from adding more than is necessary, and to remove the unnecessary ideas. This helps keep things as simply as we can while moving forward. If we feel like logic will help answer a question or whatever, we can apply it.

The supreme logical beginning could be worded like this:

1. Existence exists.
2. ...
and so on

I have been working on something like this for a few years, only randomly picking it up and trying to eliminate all I can and trim down the number of logical statements that are written to follow one after another. I have something like 17 or 18 logical statements, but started with around 25. I think posting it at this point will only distract us. So, after more discussion and dialogue I look to posting it. Sorry, I keep saying I'm going to post it, but then change my mind. XD

- Jared

- Jared

You Are Tacit.

HeartRealization.com

Part of the Action

We remain committed to be on the forefront of what will support life, both in your family and on planet earth. 

 

My interaction with you is an Experiment to further enable this vision to be true, and up to the rhythm that you are a part of the action.  

 

Please contribute to make this vision real.  

With Heart Felt Thanks, Richard Miller.

  

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 3 guests online.