deci belle

As long as you LEARN, dear, that yours is a TEMPORARY assignment and that I do not follow your directives.

I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO GRASP THAT FACT.

dawei wrote:

 

deci belle, on 07 Feb 2015 - 18:06, said:

It is the province of adepts to use creation to arrive at the real within the context of each created cycle. This is the working definition of immortality, being the fact that one does not go along with creation.

Duh.❤︎ I will add a little more now that I'm back in the mood…

Creation happens.

Michael is a perfect example. He just wanted to have fun and I didn't go along. Why? Michael has been on a social whirl as of late and I took note of it earlier this week. I actually liked one of his posts because he was able to hold several points together and took the time to address each point in turn, logically.

He knows how to argue properly, orderly, and thoroughly (at least it felt that way, as I did not actually read his post). It seems he was having his way with the hapless bum he was addressing (whether or not that's true is immaterial as Michael was acting like he was). I didn't even care what Michael wrote. I just liked how it felt~ confident. Besides, it was pure rhetoric— why would I care? Maybe he's an attorney.

It is the only post I've read other than those that appear on my threads in quite a long time. At any rate, I decided to unlike that post shortly thereafter as I did not want to taint his reputation with any association from one such as I~ heehee!!

So a few days later, who decides to grace me with a second-hand glance by way of a "too-hip-gotta-go-but-here's-this-titbit… like I'm supposed to be impressed? Not.

That's what this is all about. He was screwed before the first thought. And on top of everything he's got nothing to offer this thread. Poor thing feels misunderstood— I get that much.

Feeling misunderstood is how you feel when your potential gets ripped off by creation for no reason.

Then he got to feel validated by the moderator spraying about "anyone can say anything about anything anywhere… blah, blah, party-line, blah, blah").

Creation happens. If only Michael could address the OP, he wouldn't have to be a dashing, dabbling, social-media dervish on his way to somewhere more important than where he's at right now. Yawn.

If he could address it, he wouldn't have to, much less be in suuuch a rush to act like it's a simple matter of rhetorical slap-dash. This was a mark he had to make look easy.

It's not easy, Michael. But it is simple. It's called open sincerity without words.

ed note: add everything after "Duh.❤︎"

As for Nestentrie's observation…

In terms of the Center having no location, where can there be agreement? It is immaterial. It cannot be discussed. It can only be corroborated by those whose experience in its application is verifiable by knowing. The one who would agree has no knowledge to corroborate.

If he didn't already know that, he STILL doesn't know that.

The point of knowing this Center has its inherent application, which is not a matter of doing.

Those who see, have this applied by virtue of inherent potential in ordinary situations such as this one. It does not require doing, only seeing. The mod doesn't see shit. I don't need agreement. I already have a thread of my OWN making with a topic that cannot be approached by convention.

The working definition of delusion is not knowing one is deluded. The one who would agree doesn't know he doesn't know.

Here's what I know: THERE IS NOTHNG TO KNOW. What is there to discuss with one who would agree with something unknowable? I cannot help these people. They are helpless of themselves. I'm not here for them.

Those who don't, don't know where to begin~ therefore in putting on a show of belief in agreement, those invested in reason (the moderator and the recreational philosopher) only wish (as was proved) to usurp terminology. biG w00p. Now they're gone.

I DO NOT DISCUSS TOPICS BASED ON REASON OR BELIEF. Nor I do not court favor or avoid censure.

In other words, not agreeing later is the same as not agreeing before. Nothing has changed here. Creation came and went.

Before and after, right and wrong: Who decides it's all the same?

The social moderator and the social butterfly on the social media site got stuck with that.

In the context of this created cycle, I would have to say that dealing with Michael the way I have is to acknowledge that I am not speaking of physics nor philosophy. I do not pretend to be reasonable. Recreational philosophers do that quite well, it seems.

Therefore there is no basis for discussion with one who cannot see that his premise is ignorant of the topic.

Presence is a quality of immediacy. Off-hand treatment of an ill-conceived glib repartee completely missing the point of the title of this thread is unacceptable.

The moderator has a job to do and I have MY job to do. The social butterfly has nothing invested.

I will determine what I shall.

If Michael is unable to regard the OP and posts unconsciously out of habit, That is not EVEN off-topic.

It's called pissing on a post.

Much better, thank you, Mark.

The infinite BY MY DEFINITION, is creation.

On my threads, you will use MY criteria— therefore I dissuade you from talking about a "center" YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Having stepped OVER infinity— that is my prerogative to do so.

Now go play Star-Lord on a thread of your own making and go to town with it— I won't be following you.

That you cannot grasp that which is beyond philosophical speculation defines your inability to meet the criteria for contributing at a level of MY determination.

Exercise your free-speech elsewhere until you can turn the light around yourself, and prove it in actual affairs.

I expect you to raise the bar, Michael. Do so and thank me in another lifetime.❤︎

I am speaking of what you cannot, Michael.

Do not bring down the nature of my content to your recreational level. That's called pirating.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

This is not matter of the created universe, Michael. You seemed to have had a grasp of this already from what I had gathered from your earlier posts elsewhere. Evidently, I was mistaken.

Though it may work for you conceptually, since it is a matter of inconceivability, those with the will to enlightenment must invariably step over eternity to enter the Way in reality. Therefore, why not just drop it altogether from the very start?

That it has no location is not dependent on anything. It is the created which depends on this. Arriving at its pivot is beyond your ken to cleverly consider by such nonsensical logic. Honor you essential nature and arrive at its basis which is the homeland of nothing whatsoever. Then you will come to discover that infinity, space, center, ALL, higher and lower (in your current lexicon) is neither here not there (in terms of my lexicon).

I don't disuade you from using the created as an example to describe reality, but do not pretend to manifest something in the way of rhetoric where it does not apply— even when you might have an eternity to throw away. So don't go off half-cocked and be cheap with your posts on my threads, mr Star-Lord. When you actually have dispensed with eternity, we might have something to talk about wordlessly.

It is the province of adepts to use creation to arrive at the real within the context of each created cycle. This is the working definition of immortality, being the fact that one does not go along with creation.

There is no order for you to contrive in the sense of the topic of my threads, Michael. Either you get it or you don't. Getting it is not within the realm of any order you might contrive intellectually. Either you know it or you don't …and you don't.

ed note: add last line

Yes, Brian, it seems to open up of itself when we stop using mind in the same old reasonably self-reflective way.

Real Knowledge's application is activated in NOT using the intellectual/psychological apparatus.

That's why it is called the nonpsychological. People do not understand that the nonpsychological is spiritual.

How embarrassingly simple is it to stop employing the shining mind to validate the false identity of the human mentality? "As easy as turning over your hand."

Yet another facet of The Secret of the Golden Flower's brilliant term turn the light around.

ed note: add last line

There is no new center.

What is new (to you) is having gone through yet another typical creative cycle and gone along helplessly with the change and calling that you wandering, Jace. What it is, is you subject to kinetic subterfuge (karmic momentum) without you knowing it. That is the working definition of ignorance, mon ami.

What's the point of that? The point is that you do not know you are not created, therefore you are subjecting your illusionary existence to delusional forces and their consequences. That is beyond philosophy, that's what.

It is not even that you are unaware of your essential nature… the mystery can only be experienced intimately oneself and matured within (incubated is the taoist term) over a long period of time before one can even begin to manifest what it means to realize it. It has nothing to do with understanding. There is nothing to understand.

The Center is not relative to you. When you come to the practical realization that you do not exist separately, outside of a particularly functional aspect that has falsely usurped the natural spiritual order, you will then begin to develop an affinity with this Center.

Please realize yours is a very typical notion relative to philosophical speculation and does not contribute to the basis of this thread, as I do not write for those who have no affinity in this basis. Sorry.

There is no place, and this is it, whether you know it or not— such is the homeland of nothing whatsoever. The difference is whether or not you can use it to take over creation, steal potential, step over eternity, and enter the Way in reality.

The authentic traditions of spiritual perception on this planet have always been kept alive by their application, not by the verbally reasoned pastimes of philosophically speculative hobbyists.

It seems, that at this point in time, your concern, ultimately, is for your own comfort. Don't be petty.❤︎

The point is to have the full capacity of your uncreated awareness present, intact and activated without dwelling on the temporal aspect of phenomena (especially your own self-reifying concepts)— which is the entire buddhist canon in one sentence.

ed note: add to 2nd paragraph; add 3rd paragraph

Merciiii❤︎

Enlightening being is the incipient pivot of the creative, arising undifferentiated radiating aware essence.

The “creative” is itself potential, if one sees. If one doesn’t see its potential, it is eternal karmic evolution. If one sees, then one can use it to take over creation, steal its potential and step over eternity. This is immortality.

"Arising undifferentiated" is Complete Reality; just this is the Center: this being the substance of the immaterial body of awareness, one’s own inmost heart.

"Radiating aware essence" is presence. This is one’s function. There is no doing, it is itself the basis of one’s state of affairs. The world comes to this.

This is not some other place. It is here, right now. In the midst of ordinary situations, accept your function, take the forward step and share yourself freely having walked through the boundary of karmic evolution.

Just this is oneself abiding here.

Hi Asmo~ ask Apech about it— he's the one I showed.❤︎

It's just that I only stumbled on it myself by accident and PM'd him about it immediately because he is into Egyptology and such, so I knew he would relate to it.

The effect of the change is quite striking, but I only did it the one time myself before I described it to him (then I never did it again). Maybe he has the PM or perhaps you might doodle around in the interim.

It's a (scrawled *that's key* haha!!) star-shape with some sort of pentagonal line tying it together as I recall.

Apech was able to arrive at the effect by my description easily enough, Asmo~ ask him if he can conjure it up again for you! As for an mspainting, I am web-illiterate, myself— I don't know what one is~ heehee!!

ed note: add explanatory note below 1st line

Just google wayfairie.tumblr taobums (because my content is evidently keyed to my "title" here on taobums), enough of the old threads will come up to keep anyone occupied… There are five years worth of threads, even though I have only posted 1700 times since December 2008.

I used to be able to go back to my first post when rain responded (and I PM'd her~ heehee!!). And just a little before that (date in time), was the last time Sean posted in the Articles Section.

ed note: write out my ttb title in the 1st sentence

Well done, Rara!! …and thank you all for the nice replies❤︎

Even so, FmAm, freedom is knowing the nature of appearances (or not) and not following unawares. Having knowledge yet being unable to act on knowledge is the same as having no knowledge. Knowledge is seeing; acting on knowledge is not going along with appearances unawares.

Your excellent comment is missing just the one aspect of opening up and accepting its (knowledge's) function without entertaining the illusion of self-reflective doing (control).

Yun-men's dried shit-stick, already applied in terms of essence, potential, absolute, relative and enlightening response, aptly portrays the point of no-meaning, yet what is one's own freely applied effect, in terms of recognition? There is a point of power wholly inseparable: a shit-stick being the one very sameness.

Yun-men is brilliant at the turn of a phrase~ he could have very well said, "Whatever". It's just that people being what they are, just this kind of utterance has stood the ages …haha!! poor Yun-men. haha!!

Arrival at non-objectifying freedom is the fundamental basis for independent subtle observation. Use it well.

The meaning of subtle observation is knowledge not devolving into ramifications. Consciously aware is the root, not following the branches is resting in the highest good. (from paragraph 13 of the OP)

ed note: add response to FmAm; tweak the line with the parenthesized "(control)" in 2nd paragraph; add quote from the OP

Awakening to the possibilities of no meaning is simply a matter of not employing mind in that capacity.

The problem is that because mind is so quick, we cannot catch it in the act, therefore we go along with its habitual mental activity unawares and fail to notice our unbroken stream of assumptions leading on and on constituting the basis of falsity for lifetimes.

The habit of intellectualism assuming an identity being the false basis of existential reality is so deeply seated, opportunities for individuals to escape are truly rare— and when conditions arise, people rarely recognize them.

This is the true importance of the unbroken subtle concentration observing mind spoken of in the classics. It is a matter of sincere intent alone. Taoism calls this the "go-between" joining sense and essence.

ed note: typo, last paragraph

"Other" is close enough.

Xi Wangmu (Hsi Wang Mu), the Queen Mother of the Western Court in the Kunlun mountain range (purported to exist west of the cultural homeland of the Han) is the doyenne of the celestial organization of Taoist immortals.

It is an origin myth of sorts. I use the term "myth" advisedly.

Oh~ I lied about the romance novels. I only read the covers of teen romance comics… heehee!! Perhaps that will be the source of my next avatar!!❤︎

I'll be on the lookout for a guuud one~

ed note: add the Queen Mother's name to 1st paragraph

dawei said:

re: no-mind

 

Isn't this just sameness as One [universal] Mind?

 

Meaning, I take No-mind to mean No [separate, individual] Mind (?)

I think so, to some extent, dawei. There is a matter of degree and people tend to consider such concepts as absolutes.

The critical aspect is in its application. Without taking this into account, there is no enlightening function of subtle adaption, which is the basis of all authentic teaching traditions on this planet.

In terms of the context of my statement as quoted, oneself abiding in no-mind naturally is one's natural pristine aware function open and untrammeled, sensitive and effective, calm and unperturbable in everyday ordinary situations.

It is the natural stability of one's lucid capacity shining; (the red-headed little sparrow-mind having folded its wings).

In terms of no separate individual mind, this little sparrow having folded its wings is not at all different than no-mind itself. There are no two minds. Mind is one. It is the sparrow's two wings which are emblematic of duality— not the tao-mind vs. the human mentality. When the sparrow folds its wings, it is as of yore …which is as before the first thought in perpetuity.

This is not a reference to the absolute or sudden illumination. Before the first thought is already the integral capacity of one's awareness, uncreated all-at-once immediate knowledge. This is the context of no-mind as quoted. It is one's spiritual nonpsychological perceptivity activated and not dwelling on anything. In the active sense, it's literally not minding.

Ironically, in terms of self-refinement, it is the result of minding mind and not minding things which arrives at the world-honored result of the stabilization of one's long and gradual process of conditioning oneself to resting the mind on no-mind, until it folds its wings over and over and over again. That is, freeing oneself from the habit of (ar)resting the mind on things, thoughts, etc.

Revisiting (returning to) this is the natural refreshment of the pristine essence of awareness within each alternation of yin and yang by virtue of created karmic cycles. It is the meaning of the saying use the false to find the true.

Eventually, after a long time, the mind puts its artificial habit-energy wings away for good (the highest good) and one ascends to heaven in broad daylight to pay court to the Queen of the West in the Kun-Lun mountains…❤︎ heeheehee!!

oh dear, has i been reading too many romance novels?!! I cannot read too many romance novels!!

*blush* heehee!!

Yes, seeing voids is/not-is. This is sameness responsively accepting its function and taking the forward step, deluded within delusion. Not abiding in the human mentality is called "meditation". Even so, just this is mind alone. Knowledge having no object is the same thing as "meditation" in order to speak of abiding in the highest good before the first thought.

Otherwise, "meditation" falls into a class of remedial formality. True meditation is not relative to doing~ it is just a way to refer to abiding in no-mind naturally.

ed note: I blushed in response; the addition came in terms of "meditation"

Oui, mon ami~ I kept looking for me and ultimately I found that there is nothing at all to speak of, and whatever or wherever that homeland of nothing whatsoever may appear to be, it has never fallen into the creative.

When I speak of appearances, whether they arise as the absolute or as karmic evolution, it is knowledge being oneself alone; there is no other.

Wayfairie recently posted a quote from Linji that says supernormal powers of the enlightened amount to entering into phenomena without being confused by phenomena.

So when I speak of appearances that do not confuse people in the midst of situations, it is just that there is no personalistic psychological locus existent to posit confusion because there is no habitual thought based on the facetious personality of the being that is going to die.

This thing of no location is universal. The Center is the totality of reality with neither inside nor outside. Though its (transcendent) effect does not rely on the sudden—experientially, it's you: therefore, you are not it by virtue of its (your) selfless nature. There is nothing to maintain for appearances sake. I have been bouncing back and forth between the relative and the absolute in terms of appearances for a reason. THEY ARE SAMENESS. THERE IS NO TWO SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. THERE IS NO COIN. Just smile!

It goes without saying that you do not constitute a point for confusion to accumulate. And by that, in terms of the relative, I mean there is really no self to maintain in terms of a psychological locus for confusion to accumulate. There is already nothing whatsoever to account for in terms of self and other relative to conditions. When Gautama buddha held up the flower, Mahakasyapa just smiled. Confusion? How can there be confusion where there is nothing to understand?

Confusion is only possible by referencing the personality's construed psychological awareness in terms of its own relative not-self, whereas nonpsychological awareness' perspective is in terms of the present impersonal situation.

The only reason the authentic teachings exist is to counter habit energy being YOUR habit. Conditioned energy is karmic— it just is, whether you see your nature or not.

The provisional teaching of emptiness or the illusion of temporal existence is just so people will avoid losing themselves unawares long enough to develop an independent perspective based on nonpsychological awareness in order to forget the self-reifying thoughts and feelings that bind one to karmic existence.

Reality and delusion appear the same because they are the same. Substantial stability of clarity functioning in the midst of appearances has no confusion because there is no psychological locus (location) for habitual self-reifying thoughts and feelings (confusion) to accumulate.

What's left is impersonal characteristics. Just this is the basis of one's response. Effective response is the result of seeing through phenomena without denying their characteristics.

Abiding here (enlightening being) is the incipient pivot of the creative arising undifferentiated radiating aware essence. The creative is itself potential, if one sees. If one doesn't see, it is creation/karmic evolution. If one sees, then one can use it. Arising undifferentiated is Complete Reality; this being the Center. Obviously, it is the self. Radiating aware essence is presence. This is one's function. Just smile.❤︎

ed note: add "The only reason the authentic teachings exist is to counter habit energy being YOUR habit." in 8th paragraph

The point is this, Trunk (and anyone else who might benefit):

To consider formal meditation high, and ordinary situations low, is the perspective of an outsider. And outsiders ought not be proscribing anything to others, even if they have heard it from those they consider higher than themselves.

Again, meditation, or even consciously treating everyday ordinary situations as meditation is poison. This is what ought to be used sparingly only by the most recalcitrant of human mentalities, and then under the supervision of an enlightened teacher. I believe there should be enough to go around.

Otherwise it is best to follow the dictum: See essence on your own, then seek a teacher. Curiously, it is the currently popular Tibetan tradition whose xenophobic cultural tendencies counter this otherwise universal approach to self-realization and, more importantly, its application in everyday life unbeknownst to anyone. I am not a stranger to this phenomena as I have seen its effects on close associates due to that particularly rich tradition's religionist predilection.

Everyday ordinary situations IS the center. Reality does not look different than delusion. To maintain an inner posture of meditation (in action, no doubt) isn't even entry-level. I have been saying for years that enlightenment is entry-level.

Living in the world in the capacity of enlightening being is already its center without beginning. It is already your own mind as is before the first thought, people.

To see delusion as reality (and not the other way around), is true meditation AS the center having no location.

Meditation students should already know that there is reformative meditation on emptiness, the provisional and on the center, and that one must apply concentration on each aspect from the perspective of each aspect (that's nine aspects). Furthermore, there is abiding in the center of all perspective without aspect.

Remember also, that going here is different for each student, yet all have the potential for enlightenment— which ultimately has no culturally relative aspect. The Avatsakam Sutra states that Universal Good is the source of civilizations. Culture is derivative of this. Culture determines that which is profane and that which is profound, but it cannot determine that which is nonoriginated within oneself.

This Center is oneself, yet it is not arrived at by technique, nor by teachings, nor by cultural emphasis on particulars suited to times and places. Nothing is created, there is no creator, Mind is unified awareness. Do not employ high and low to arrive at this center of the body of awareness having no location to view within the context of reason's machinations and intellectualist's prose.

And if you do manage to arrive here, it will not be as a result of effort or inclination, since it has already been thus all along without your knowing so.

And if what I have written does not resonate with you, then perhaps the topic is juuuust beyond your current reach to warrant posting a reply.

But do, please, consider commenting sincerely by PM.❤︎

ed note: typo last line

The world is empty of itself. There is no high or low. Use everyday ordinary situations to dissolve this thing of yours, Trunk.

Formal meditation is a temporary expedient. Therefore, clinging to teachings is sickness~ however expedient their methods.

Awareness that dissolves isn't reality—this is precisely what must be passed through initially. That is why it cannot dissolve too much. It is personalistic attachment to this too much or too little as a matter of relativity that must be penetrated fully to transcend it. Everything you speak of comes from this conceptual locus of the experiencer and knower.

Do admit that Trunk has not gone far enough.

I myself am proof that THERE IS NO HIGH OR LOW. Your point is derivative of a level of provisional teaching, Trunk— which is wholly out of context and off-topic on my threads. This is my thread describing that which is the teaching using essence itself with no intermediary. DO NOT EVER FORGET THAT FACT, TRUNK.

THIS IS NEITHER TAOISM NOR BUDDHISM, MUCH LESS SOME OTHER KIND. MIND IS ONE. SINCE YOU ARE SO ATTACHED TO your SECTARIAN TEACHING, IT SEEMS THE MERE MENTION OF A LINE FROM A REAL CHAN MAN, WOULD SET YOU OFF ON MAKING A LIST OF PROVINCIAL TERMINOLOGY AMOUNTING TO RELIGION THAT IS NOT ADEQUATE TO FURTHER THAT WHICH IS HELD UP HERE FOR THOSE WITH THE CAPACITY TO BE A BUDDHA RIGHT NOW.

If you would like to discuss Padmasambhavism, be my guest… ON YOUR OWN THREAD.

Now please note that (at this point in time) not going far enough is not one of your problems. But do consider the possibility that psychological free-associations and projections of half-baked concepts might be.

Don't blame yourself too much though, as it is simply one of the risks of "borrowing others words" without knowing the basis from the very start. I'm not talking about that in a philosophical sense at all. I'm talking about your words on this screen now.

I don't even LOOK at any threads on this website other than my own. I'll bet that would bore you to tears, that is, Trunk, if you could satisfy yourself with your OWN material derived from your OWN experience. I sat on it for 15 years before talking to anyone about this stuff. How many years have you been writing on borrowed words without you yourself arriving at the basis of the words themselves? At that point, the heart of Padmasambhava would BE yours~ and you wouldn't even need words— his or anyone else's.

This is why I say I own them. And so, when I direct them at one such as you, I have the power to make them yours.

I would like for you, someday, to own them too.❤︎

Well, ok~ but remember another practical classic taoist saying "that which can be spoken…"

The point is that effective gradual self-refinement must acquire the perspective which has no relative psychological locus. Why? It is because self-refinement is a matter of conditioning oneself to the unconditioned— to give the human mentality no respite. One must kick out its crutch no matter how subtle it may be.

And for that, one must be able to see.

So, here I am to kick the crutch out from under this comfortable nest we have here!! ahhahaaa!!❤︎❤︎

As for lazily savoring the singular flavor, I tend to cling to superbly ungraspable sayings like "East Mountain walks on water." (Not that I have a preference.)

Absolutely nothing there to find a way or a place to alight. Who can touch this without gasping on the deathbed of philosophical discussion? It is practically useless~ yet so rich beyond conceivability.

Truly, those Chan fellows with the caliber of thoroughgoing prior illuminates such as Yun-men have always been capable of inconceivable observation resulting in titbits which penetrate all the way through without getting hung-up on anything— and carry on, beyond, without ever yet having really moved a hairsbreadth.

ed note: add "Who can touch this without gasping on the deathbed of philosophical discussion?" in penultimate paragraph

Merciii, mon ami❤︎!!

BTW, the OP is derived from parts 5 and 6 of a larger article titled Uncreated Potential on wayfairie's tumblr blog. That article was a response to a comment by Bearded Dragon concerning an earlier piece called One's Relationship with Creation, most of which subsequently appeared on this forum under a slightly modified title.

ed note: smoochies pour Clarity!!