deci belle Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) To Be Sure if I don't see it it's just that light isn't shining on it it's not that I don't see it it's just that intent has no locus it's not that light isn't shining it's just that the light is shining back on its origin it's not that there is no locus it's just that what isn't reflecting doesn't dwell so if certainty is deliberate there is bound to be confusion Edited March 2, 2011 by deci belle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boB Posted February 21, 2011 sorry to ask and excuse my ignorance; Please, I would ask you the context of the word locus in your poem. (I am not referring to plagues or swarms) More like control, influence, etc. I only ask because the word is new to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deci belle Posted February 22, 2011 (edited) sorry to ask and excuse my ignorance; Please, I would ask you the context of the word locus in your poem. (I am not referring to plagues or swarms) More like control, influence, etc. I only ask because the word is new to me. Hi bob~ the context is manifold. (the bugs are locusts) hahahahhaaa!!❤ First, there is no location. Second, intent is open— that is, without discrimination— there is no object. Third, and because of this, dwelling~ in any context, has no function. It is a matter of exercising the light without indulging discriminatory reifications within the particular realm; of activating wordless sameness within difference. The whole buddhist canon is summarized in the statement, "Activate awareness without dwelling on anything." Enlightening qualities are equal, functioning in and out of time. So spiritual function has no connection with personality or words (in that there is no interference). The spirit is fully activated within everyday ordinary situations without implication. Locus implies a relativity. Reality is causeless, so there is no thing to come from (in all sincerity). Hence, intent without locus is just your own living awareness radiating regardless of conditions or lack thereof. As there is no locus, there is no way to posit dwelling. For example, to illustrate a subtlety of refinement, a dark space is filled with smoke. Even without the light, the smoke hurts your eyes. Without discussing the relativity of smoke/eyes, perception is degraded by its environment because eyes not only see, they feel— and that is not all they do: to quote an alchemical classic, "the mechanism is in the eyes". Now we turn on a beam of light. Now let's move the light. Does it matter what angle we shine the light? Is the smoke still smoke? If we point the light towards our eyes from across the space, off-axis slightly, the smoke is particularly distinct and contrasted by the backlit orientation towards our eyes. Isn't it fascinating to watch the eddies (the smoke is alive— not just an opacity). In addition, it is our own involvement with the smoke which agitates it! So just being aware of the light relieves suffering to a degree because we trade our oppression for wonder. But if we point the light directly into our eyes, we can't see the smoke anymore. We can't see anything. The same as when the room was dark. And it hurts to look into the light as well. Again, no different than before …but the pain is different— we know it's just us because light itself is un-attributable. We have discovered our state does not depend on conditions! We are no longer compelled to waste energy in our orientation toward externals. We begin to discover the power of true independence. Just this simple discovery affords us a great advantage over conditions because in fathoming objectivity it becomes a tool. Now we know light not being superior to darkness we can nevertheless use the light within darkness, without identifying with or denying either. This device transcends ages, realms and becoming. Edited May 7, 2011 by deci belle Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
