An assertion on thinking

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.

An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:29 am

I assert that every man, whether he is aware of it or not, seeks to be consciously one with the source of his thoughts so that he may be freed of the turning circle of 'having to think.'

Thoughts?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:18 pm

An expansion on the above:

That once a man is consciously one with the source of his thoughts, his thinking ceases to circle on the relativity of his dualistic mind, his 'having to think about his world of thoughts,' and instead, his thoughts are unconditional assertions of what or who he is, right here, right now. Opining is gone, perceptions are gone, doubt is gone, he says "I am That" and he Means "I am That." He stands within the unseen boundary of the duality of his breath, but his knowledge of Who He Is is is Singular [nondual] in nature.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Blair » Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:29 pm

Tell that to the poor bastard out in desert India who works in a Coca-Cola factory fourteen hours a day for fifty cents.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:28 pm

Blair, until that man working for fifty cents an hour asserts who he is, he will continue believing he is a poor bastard because someone told him he was a poor bastard.

No different than the child continue believing he is worthless because someone once told him he was worthless.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Blair » Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:36 pm

Do you think I am going to concede one iota to a nincompoop who has read one too many manifest destiny diatribes?

That's me, asserting my self.

How do you like them apples?
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:26 pm

Don't expect you to concede.

This forum is about Ultimate Reality. This thread is about finding the Ultimate Reality of oneself. To discover what is real and unchanging within oneself and to stand strong and true on this discovery.

What is happening over in India or in America or in Australia or whatever opinions you or anyone else on this forum might have about the world are subject to change from one moment to the next. Sinking into this quicksand of his ever changing history, keeping one eye on birth and one eye on death, no man can expect to find rest and peace in the unmoving, unchanging, unborn, never-dying source of his conscious awareness.

Thank you for your apples. Sweet food for deeper thought.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Dennis Mahar » Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:58 pm

fire needs fuel.
thinker needs thought.
thought needs senses.

mind on fire.

tune into the ecstasy that surrounds you.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:42 am

fire needs fuel.
thinker needs thought.
thought needs senses.


And round and round the thinker goes
Where he stops
He doesn't know.

mind on fire.


A mind on fire is a hungry, insatiable thing.

tune into the ecstasy that surrounds you.


How can anything surround you when you are IT?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Dennis Mahar » Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:05 am

IT gets obstructed.
by?
mind on fire?
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:50 pm

Dennis, IT is your interpretation of life, you have nothing else but this. As you said earlier, subject-object is unified. If mind is on fire, that is IT to you. It was the word "surround" that I was questioning. "Surround" is a gap word separating subject and object.

Because mind on fire is a feeling immersion in sentience, mind on fire obscures that ultimate point of life-analysis in the sentient realm where one can assert their Meaning or Reason for being here. Where is here? If the metaphor of the door between realms of consciousness is used, "here" is to stand on the threshold facing what is known, the sentient realm, with one's back turned toward what is unknown, the realm beyond sentience. To stand on this point is to cease being immersed in sentience, the web of association, and to see clearly the nature of the sentient web - all of it - as you know it to be. Standing here, your inner conscience is exposed to yourself, you see clearly what it means to be breath dependent, you cannot see clearly what it means to be independent of breath, and of this realization, you interpret your "I am."

How one analyzes or reasons this highest point of seeing where mind is aware of causality but is not being moved of causality becomes their foundation of conscience, what Jesus called "being in the world, but not of the world." Knowing your reasoning of why I am here, in relation to your totality of right now, stops all doubt, opining and speculation with regards to your purpose. You have come to the mountain top of your conscious awareness, you have fearlessly freed yourself from being entangled in the ever moving web of confusion of "they say", analyzed its meaning to you and now are ready to be this meaning. Here, there is no more to do except be who you know you are, and when you know who or what you ARE, you assert who or what you ARE. This assertion will most likely appear as arrogance, ignorance or foolishness to non-threshold asserters, but to the asserter, this matters not.

It is always a joy when two who assert who they are meet and converse. Their threshold experience may be different, but because the threshold experience is always without the humanism of personalizing, their conversations are pure and clean of intent and sweet in taste and texture. Expansion beyond 'here' is always possible when two such threashold-asserters meet.

Every man, including the "poor bastard" in Blair's scenario can strive to stand on his threshold. I cannot say this to be true of anyone else, but it is my experience of the sentient realm as being one of deep suffering that I was able to stand on the threshold and know why I am here which is the same as knowing who and what I am.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:21 am

"Surround" is a gap word separating subject and object.


That's what languaging does,
splits it up,
separates out the bits and pieces,
like undoing a lego set configuration.
making 3 dimensional 2 dimensional,
putting it 'on paper'.
flattening it out.

a pale comparison to direct experience where it's not split up.

locked up in a house of language,
because it's scary without the cultural rules.
one is not free,

surrounding the house,
is possibility,
a sense of freedom, ecstasy.

once one is free,
it's not over,
one is free to act.
and even then the free to act tends to take one in the general direction of fixing up suffering because when the logic is right, compassion kicks in.

Seriously,
the inquiry has to look at the question.
Is there anyone here actually doing anything anyway?
It just looks like survival patterns.
Everyone is certainly wary.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Jan 10, 2012 5:30 am

Let me put it this way.
I met a woman a month ago I hadn't seen for 20 years.
She was in a situation a year ago where she was ripped off in a major way.
Her son is furious she was ripped off and wants to kill the perpetrator.
She won't reveal the perp to the son.
She is taking the perp to court.
She and the son are in breakdown.
He has punched her and pushed her over.
She writes long letters to him and leaves them on his pillow to read.
The letters are full of 'you' statements.
you need pyschiatric help etc...blah, blah, blah.

In several conversations with her I showed her that her son is acting from 'Care'.
That he feels protective of her and is somehow upset that his urge to protect got violated.

I got her to gestalt on 'my son cares for me'.
When she gestalted, the tears rained and peace and love came in to her face and body.

We went to a cafe and she wrote a new letter from 'peace and love',
a letter acknowledging the understanding that his upset was due to his 'Care'.
A letter of 'I feel' statements rather than 'You are' statements.

After a few days I rang her to see how it is going.
she and her son have had deep and meaningfuls,
speaking 'I feel' statements.
are reconciled,
it's fixed.
breakthru' from breakdown.

She thanked me but in the thanking of me was this palpable sense of her being 'wary'.

She must think I want something.
I don't.
what could I possibly want?
there's nothing there but breakdown/breakthru'.
I'm disconnecting. too complicated.
I'm outta there.
people don't get it. they get it wrong.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:06 am

That's what languaging does,
splits it up,
separates out the bits and pieces,
like undoing a lego set configuration.
making 3 dimensional 2 dimensional,
putting it 'on paper'.
flattening it out.


When one identifies with materialism or empiricism, this is what appears to be happening, yes.

a pale comparison to direct experience where it's not split up.


What does happen, however, when one steps beyond their outward-directed mind of empiricism, of dualism, into their inward-directed realm of "reasoning the things of God [Consciousness]", is that they begin thinking and speaking the language of the abstract SELF, the language of pure logic and spiritual metaphor. I hope you understand that the abstract logical and spiritual SELF is not the ego self of belief in inherent existence. They are totally different "I am" experiences. The SELF speaks the language of direct experience, of subject-object union, whereas the self speaks the language of separation, of subject-object separation.

locked up in a house of language,
because it's scary without the cultural rules.
one is not free,

surrounding the house,
is possibility,
a sense of freedom, ecstasy.


If you examine what you are saying here, you will see that what you are describing is not a direct experience. A "possibility" is not a direct experience, nor is a sense of freedom a direct experience. Either you are free or you are not free. Either you are ecstatic [all the time] or you are not ecstatic [all the time].

From where I stand, the walls of the house need to come down. Using the language of the abstract SELF, of course. :-)

once one is free,
it's not over,
one is free to act.
and even then the free to act tends to take one in the general direction of fixing up suffering because when the logic is right, compassion kicks in.


Here again, you are not using the language of direct experience, of certainty, of subject-object union. I have italicized the key words to illustrate my point..."and even then the freedom to act tends to take one in the general direction of fixing up suffering because when the logic is right, compassion kicks in. Direct experience of SELF or SELF assertion does not experience doubt or confusion. Direct experience of SELF is logical [there is no right or wrong logic], as is direct experience of SELF compassionate [compassion does not 'kick in']. When one knows their abstract SELF, there is never the awareness of what is not, always the awareness of what is. Back to my point on assertion.

Seriously,
the inquiry has to look at the question.
Is there anyone here actually doing anything anyway?
It just looks like survival patterns.
Everyone is certainly wary.


The realm of sentience is all about survival patterns, hence the reason it is the realm of suffering. This is why it is critical to one's liberation from this suffering to turn inward toward one's source of sentience and reconcile the suffering with that source. You are both. Welcome to the world of the abstract, logical, spiritual SELF that purifies and absorbs/gathers the fighting-for-survival sense-of-separate self. Is this SELF that purifies and gathers actually doing anything? You bet. The most important 'doing' a man "born of woman" and reborn as a man of Spirit can do.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:33 am

She thanked me but in the thanking of me was this palpable sense of her being 'wary'.

She must think I want something.


Whenever a condition is partially dissolved because someone showed you a good way, a beneficial way to partially dissolve it, there is wariness, because a) the condition is not completely dissolved and b) it did not come from one's own SELF revelation. Only when the SELF analyzes the WHY and the WHAT must be done can the condition be permanently dissolved.

I don't.
what could I possibly want?


Only you can answer the meaning of the experience to you.

there's nothing there but breakdown/breakthru'.


I am not discounting that you awakened your friend in a meaningful way, but again, until SHE connects the dots between her SELF and herself, until she stands on the threshold of her own web of association and is able to reconcile it with her transcendent SELF, conditions such as she is currently experiencing will not be permanently dissolved.

I'm disconnecting. too complicated.
I'm outta there.
people don't get it. they get it wrong.


Until you drop the walls of the ecstasy that surrounds your house [your mind], and begin walking the walk of the abstract, ecstasy-eating SELF :-), you will not have the rest of Wisdom of the complete picture and will want to flee when those you help come to you for expanded guidance.

Dropping the walls of the surrounded house is the hardest part of getting to know SELF. This is where the experience of unconditional SELF love and SELF faith 'kick in'...:-)

Have you encountered the the terms "dark night of the soul" and "dark night of the spirit", usually attributed to the spirit 'walk' of the mystic?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:08 am

You don't get me.
I'm saying,
'trouble and strife' and 'peace and love' are conditions.
pieces and parts.
ecstasy, being a condition.
language, being a condition.
survival...condition.
wary...condition.
empty of self-establishment.
experienced out of a dependant arising.


I'm not denying existence.

How it exists is the question for interrogation.

I don't worry about ultimate reality.
It takes care of itself.

If someone is presenting to me authentically as an overwhelmed condition.
Can't punch their way out of their own paper bag.
I'll talk to that condition.
I don't give a fuck personally.
I just like to see 'trouble and strife' melt into 'peace and love'.
for the time being.
doin' the Eagle Rock.

I'm satisfied ,
Nothing exists permanently.
something exists apparently.
the something existing apparently can be transformed because it's ultimately 'empty and meaningless'.

I fancy meself as practical.
troubleshooter.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Blair » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:12 pm

movingalways wrote: until that man working for fifty cents an hour


Not per hour, per day.

And since we are getting in to the spirit of asserting ourselves, I find you a waste of oxygen and I hope your children get decapitated in a freak accident, and you are there to see it, then you get breast cancer.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:29 pm

Blair wrote:
movingalways wrote: until that man working for fifty cents an hour


Not per hour, per day.

And since we are getting in to the spirit of asserting ourselves, I find you a waste of oxygen and I hope your children get decapitated in a freak accident, and you are there to see it, then you get breast cancer.


What you hope is indeed asserting yourself, but is not an assertion of who or what you are. When you can assert who or what you are you will be able to converse with me on a level playing field.
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Blair » Tue Jan 10, 2012 4:02 pm

You have a nerve, I'll give you that.

Bottom line is, you are going to lose.

Not me, you.

And I'll be chuckling, nay laughing about it.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby ForbidenRea » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:17 pm

movingalways wrote:Dennis, IT is your interpretation of life, you have nothing else but this. As you said earlier, subject-object is unified. If mind is on fire, that is IT to you. It was the word "surround" that I was questioning. "Surround" is a gap word separating subject and object.

Because mind on fire is a feeling immersion in sentience, mind on fire obscures that ultimate point of life-analysis in the sentient realm where one can assert their Meaning or Reason for being here. Where is here? If the metaphor of the door between realms of consciousness is used, "here" is to stand on the threshold facing what is known, the sentient realm, with one's back turned toward what is unknown, the realm beyond sentience. To stand on this point is to cease being immersed in sentience, the web of association, and to see clearly the nature of the sentient web - all of it - as you know it to be. Standing here, your inner conscience is exposed to yourself, you see clearly what it means to be breath dependent, you cannot see clearly what it means to be independent of breath, and of this realization, you interpret your "I am."

How one analyzes or reasons this highest point of seeing where mind is aware of causality but is not being moved of causality becomes their foundation of conscience, what Jesus called "being in the world, but not of the world." Knowing your reasoning of why I am here, in relation to your totality of right now, stops all doubt, opining and speculation with regards to your purpose. You have come to the mountain top of your conscious awareness, you have fearlessly freed yourself from being entangled in the ever moving web of confusion of "they say", analyzed its meaning to you and now are ready to be this meaning. Here, there is no more to do except be who you know you are, and when you know who or what you ARE, you assert who or what you ARE. This assertion will most likely appear as arrogance, ignorance or foolishness to non-threshold asserters, but to the asserter, this matters not.

It is always a joy when two who assert who they are meet and converse. Their threshold experience may be different, but because the threshold experience is always without the humanism of personalizing, their conversations are pure and clean of intent and sweet in taste and texture. Expansion beyond 'here' is always possible when two such threashold-asserters meet.

Every man, including the "poor bastard" in Blair's scenario can strive to stand on his threshold. I cannot say this to be true of anyone else, but it is my experience of the sentient realm as being one of deep suffering that I was able to stand on the threshold and know why I am here which is the same as knowing who and what I am.

Here, is the causation of the sun.
ForbidenRea
 

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Dennis Mahar » Tue Jan 10, 2012 6:18 pm

What I like to do.
Taking someone from breakdown to breakthru'.
looks like,
restoring a memory of themselves to themselves before they went down the track that led to the overwhelm condition.

Like when a computer goes a bit crazy and you hit the Restore button and the computer 'remembers' a good point and starts off again.
gets back in working condition.

It's not enlightenment.
It relieves suffering.
It's 'recognising' emptiness.
There's not an overwhelm condition that can't be snapped out of if the conversation is authentic.
It's proof of emptiness.
All is empty.
causes/conditions.
which enables transformation.
no empty/no transform.

'restoring a memory of themselves to themselves'
I like it.
mind certainly goes astray at times.

There's an old story of the frozen carcass of a leopard being found up above the snowline of Kilamanjaro.
The question was,
What was the leopard doing out of it's territory?
The answer is it was trying to get something.
It followed a tantalising scent.
'Mind/senses on fire'.
There's nothing to get says the sage.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:00 pm

Blair wrote:You have a nerve, I'll give you that.

Bottom line is, you are going to lose.

Not me, you.

And I'll be chuckling, nay laughing about it.


I have no doubt it is your desire that you perceive me as losing your game. What has that got to do with me?
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby movingalways » Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:31 am

FR: Here, is the causation of the sun.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NqbO6NZNJY
User avatar
movingalways
 
Posts: 1754
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Blair » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:27 pm

movingalways wrote:I have no doubt it is your desire that you perceive me as losing your game. What has that got to do with me?


Everything. You are asserting your version of Ultimate Reality, and I'm asserting mine.

In time you will lose everything single thing that you value, and be left with nothing but despair.

I'll be snickering about it, or dead. That's my right, that's how I win.

I'm Ultimate Reality.
User avatar
Blair
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Kunga » Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 pm

FUCKIN A
User avatar
Kunga
 
Posts: 2303
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:04 am

Re: An assertion on thinking

Postby Dennis Mahar » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:05 pm

In time you will lose everything single thing that you value, and be left with nothing but despair.


I'm confident Pam's worked it thru' sufficiently enough to grieve losses as they arise but to sink into despair doesn't look like a piece and part of her ken.
Credit where it's due.
I'll put money on it.
Dennis Mahar
 
Posts: 4084
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:03 pm

Next

Return to GENIUS FORUM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests