PDA

View Full Version : Just thinking



BDeye
9th May 2013, 12:39 PM
Firstly I want to say this is only a exercise, if it offends or causes any unrest please delete it. This line of questioning may be old and tired, if so, delete or ignore as well.

I find myself puzzled sometimes, not necessarily in a bad way. Iv'e seen a few things which have often amazed me to the point of tears, but in all that time I have never been able to claim that I know what's going on. This has often forced me to consider possibilities which can sometimes be quite unpalatable. One such possibility is that this is it, nothing more is out there. Again this is only a consideration, not a faithful acceptance.

I then ask myself, does this degrade the world around me to a space occupied by perishable items, of no further value than their immediate existence. Or, do I value their existence higher for its rarity. Am I person who being guaranteed no further existence, other than the present, as a means to no consequences and run out into the world, spreading havoc. Do I still try to maintain a state of peace inside myself.

Am I worried about karma. Do I actively avoid harming for fear of punishment, or is it because I hate seeing things in distress.To create a very idealist scenario, I find myself standing before God (big white beard and all). Do I apologize to him (or her, it could be a bearded lady),except in his/her capacity to embody everything including the Hurt inflicted. Or, do I seek forgiveness from the beings I've brought harm to.

In short, am I the person I am (good or bad), for the punishment or the reward. Is their anything in my nature that would embrace peace, if I were a person shut in a little room with no knowledge or possibility of a larger world.

I don't know the answers to any of these questions. These are only attempts to understand myself better. I accept that my scope of awareness is painfully short sighted and any view of the universe would most likely fall far short of the reality. I still say who knows, I find myself gladly surprised every day. I just as often entertain possibilities of such grandeur that I get giddy. Maybe one day I find out that one of the nicer ones are true, but until then I will allow myself to enjoy everything around me, as much as is possible.

Thanks for the listen
B.

CFTraveler
9th May 2013, 12:54 PM
I'm half asleep and faced with a very long day, so I may ramble (or not, I don't know who I am today yet.)

First of all, the older you get the more 'existential angst' you get, especially when the date of your demise gets closer. I never thought this was so, but at 56, and seeing my elders disappear, and finding I'm it, this becomes more and more apparent. Then, the die-hard unwavering faith you had in an eternal life (or that I had) kind of gets wibbly-wobbly, and you find yourself wondering if this is it. Self-reflection is a bitch, let me tell you. A bitch on wheels.

Then you start thinking of all the things you have seen and done- I don't know about you, but I've seen lots of things, and done lots of things too, but it seems that they are only memories, and don't seem to exist. So then you wonder what eternity is, if there is no past, and the future doesn't exist either. So all there is is now. And now can be very long or very short, it all depends on how present you are in every moment. Then the thought of fractals comes up. Eternity in time, something that seems contradictory. You can continue to divide any point/moment to infinity, and I wonder if our conscious awareness can get 'entangled' in one of those eternal moments- and at least part of us stay there, so that when our bodies cease to exist, part of us can continue to experience it, if that's possible. So be sure it's a perfect moment. A moment when all is well, everyone is happy and healthy. Then concentrate on that moment, give it all of "you". See if later on, you can come back to it as if you had been in 'it' all your life.

If there is entropy and nothing is left, at least you've got that moment.

I told you it was too early. :)

BDeye
9th May 2013, 01:02 PM
Lovely, and one I've considered, but beautifully said.

ButterflyWoman
9th May 2013, 02:55 PM
This has often forced me to consider possibilities which can sometimes be quite unpalatable.
Considering these possibilities often leads to breaking attachments. The reason it feels so scary and bad is because you're deeply attached to certain ideas and concepts, and considering others can be threatening to those ideas and concepts. Eventually, when the attachments become a non-issue, you stop worrying about it so much. Or at all, in many cases. Thinking about it becomes entirely academic, because you know that it doesn't matter, ultimately, and it doesn't matter in a good way, not in a nihilistic, apathetic way. 0


One such possibility is that this is it, nothing more is out there.
Out where? Past the suburbs? Past the solar system? Past the edges of your defined reality? What sort of things should be there that might not be wherever it is they're supposed to be?


Am I person who being guaranteed no further existence, other than the present, as a means to no consequences and run out into the world, spreading havoc. Do I still try to maintain a state of peace inside myself.
Don't you want to be peaceful? Do you want to spread havoc? Be who you want to be, don't do it because of some real or imagined possible punishment from seen or unseen forces that may or may not exist somewhere or other "out there".


Am I worried about karma.
Define "karma". Divine retribution? Some form of "be good or bad things will happen to you"? (That is, a means of controlling you, and others, to get you to conform to the society's norms.)


Do I actively avoid harming for fear of punishment, or is it because I hate seeing things in distress.
That's a good question, and one well worth meditation. Do you act from fear, or do you act from love? If the former, do you want to be controlled by fear? Are you willing to live your life reacting from a place of weakness (fear)? If the answer is no, what do you want? How do you want to act? Who do you want to be?


Maybe one day I find out that one of the nicer ones are true
Perhaps one day you'll find that reality is not set in stone, and that your reality is formed by you, by your thoughts, your beliefs, your sense of identity, your concepts, your fears, your loves... ;)

BDeye
9th May 2013, 03:04 PM
Most excellent responses again.

CFTraveler
9th May 2013, 09:09 PM
Don't you want to be peaceful? Do you want to spread havoc? Be who you want to be, don't do it because of some real or imagined possible punishment from seen or unseen forces that may or may not exist somewhere or other "out there". Yes! Exactly. Whatever 'this' is, it's for you, at this time.

Tutor
10th May 2013, 03:49 PM
wow, awesome thread, thanks BDeye. my reception of it is that we cannot know the answers, because we are the answer, or any-one individually is their own unique answer..."just thinking". thinking is thinking

it is like some will say that when they see it then they will believe it; yet upon believing do we all see it. everybody believes something, actually many things when it comes down to it. does it matter whether one believes or not?

James Allen wrote a great little book titled 'As a man thinketh so he is'. that may not be the exact title, just having my morning coffee, so....; but Allens collective works are wonderfully clearing of what we all humanly share.

the power of belief is purely human, and is akin to awe. to say as another member wrote in a recent thread, "everything is in place for a reason" paraphrase. be we are not things or of things, yet in things we all are, having our being.

this place can be as boxed in, or all in the head; or it can be out of the box, and o' boy cuz pandora's box might be small, but lord have mercy, all is packed into it. but we can equate this to how much memory may be stored in a tiny placement, and from that placement...how much from it may outgoing become operable.

this is like the statement, "we don't fear how small we seem to be, we fear how god-awe-ful great that we really are" paraphrase of..gosh darnit...memory fails right now.

if we track the beginnings of the human, we find a rod with a head, like a pin that we'd stick into a map upon the wall. following that, we find all that the human body is coming into formation. but in that lil pinhead is all the data for the copy to begin formation.

that rod follows laws, laws which bring about the image called human. once born, the finished vessel makes it's way to the finished contents. Taoism is natuarally human, and teaches one how to become empty along the way. this instead of pursuing the way with burgeoning contents that have never been accessed. do we need to access them? probably not for the most part. as to say, in every lie is a kernel of truth. in emptying, the kernels are planted, the lie or lies surrendered in that; and the freedom to be as a child again empty toward ever new contentual being. this is like one whom lives the life as opposed to their life living they, contentually speaking. intent is borne of content, therefore the emptier the better, for innocence requires no intent, but to be.

all the impersonal systemic functions in place, cannot be bargained with, and if tryed try you. is what such does, not requiring all due respect, yet in trying you will gain your due respect to be sure.

does awe name, or does the child innocense in awe name? both, for one gives that which from names may be derived, and the latter within it's power of belief formulates names. impersonal and personal

it is better to always be arriving, then to from be deriving. hey you! and watch the heads turn. hey bob! and maybe bob saw ya comin and dodged the meeting going down another walmart aisle.

a thing-a-ma-bob is not a you, simply because being is not of things, while within things it has it's being. "to be or not to be" W.S.

yet, all such as would a human try on, is to be respected, whether understood by another or not. it isnt like anything can be taken with us, ya see? only our being comes and goes.

thing-a-ma-bob's rule our co-existent place, so beware friend, if you set foot out as You. but, such as is the latter, is awe's friend simply in being awe filled in a flow that keeps not, and allows flowing...continuous emptying for the new life within. but one must see that life is pouring out of this vessel as it sets foot out.

there is Noah and there is No'ah, no means no, and ahhhhh! is what innocense exclaims when eyes assemble of awe's sight seeing the sight of awe in all things peacefully met. ahhh is the sound of the exhalation of our breaths. unless of course, we've some-thing to say beyond that simple ahhhh.

silence is golden, they've said, certainly they that have met awe. i may type like a banshe, however, i say very little to anyone in person. and if i do say any-thing, i say some-thing of good report about they.

one cannot judge a thing-a-ma-bob, cuz we've all such as this/these till we see it. we cover our-selves because we have to, and we get used to this such that want to. but clothes do make what is being, being makes clothes. our naked vulnerability never escapes, it only gets ignored, stifled into a wrongful silence, one of inward punitive force. learned toward unlearning

the flow is not meant to flow from without inward. it is meant to flow from within outward, in all honesty. "God does not like liars"

but who is not made into a "liar" if they've been outward taught to that they must become some-thing.

thus, is how we in things, forgetful of our pre-existent being, unfortunately become lost of things. thus it is said, be of God and in the world, and not of the world and in the world.

one cannot serve two masters, is another saying about such. yet this statement indicates our understandable forgiveness, for we know not what we do, till we do. this 'till we do' from our being within outflowing. true being is not dualistic, though being of within and being in without, does require constant forgiveness from the constant fore-givinness.

this is bilateral agreements, where the 'or' decides that both are true (Puk). if we say 'good and evil', then the 'and' dictates true and false without the bilaterality. this is seen in the human faces as we meet, the facement of bicamerality is not balanced, the left and right are not in agreement as we see the right and left of another or our mirrored reflection, face on.

awe is good enough for me. beyond that, what the hell do i really know, even as i've the power to name names in the naming; even if myriad names are here before i ever arrived as this me named Tim.

if we've all these differing names for the same things we all share in kind (awe), then how may we agree?

that we both are is enough. that we all are is quite enough. enough is enough

being is already in agreement or this place would not be for our being to be. we have co-existence, yet we allow it not. and this we will not own as ours to allow. thus, we cannot blame the place or the placements that of place reckon in place. yet, with impersonal understanding beyond the din of our noise, the allowance is to our personals/things delivering our reckoning such that we come to our allowance of oneanother as peacefully co-existent.

ours is the partiality, we've merely mis-placed that partiality into things and not into oneanother. the latter was first, therefore must be last. at great liberty, we've derivatively placed liberty into things, thus lost it to things, this contentually and not by intent, for we knew it not. for we are intentual beingness, or we could not be as beings. Liberty is non-destructable, therefore are we the same, for we are Liberty at liberty.

as a member Jananz has written in this forum, her comaprisons of us as we seem now to the 'borg' characterized in Star Trek. but, this is not accusative, and is merely our present happenstance toward co-arrival, delivered from our derivative mis-placements in the same place, from same beingness having our engatherance of beings being.

the Divine economy has not misplaced itself, even as we've woe-fully misplaced ourselves. but, my god, the turn on what is woe-full is awe-full. enough said.

to have is one thing, to have and to hold is an-other. uphold what is You, allowing things there rightfully placed placements, whereof or wherein, you too, after all, have right-full place..to be in awe before all.

a note on the head: i reckon that what's of the head would every much like to tabernacle in our hearts, being as we are altogether at the heart of it being. the difference between what remains unseen and that which remaining to be is very much seen as being.

Fade Into You: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnqWhhOpGKU

Just Be...You,

Tim

Be not a stranger to your self friend, finding no stranger without friend, for a friend to self is a Friend to All, all in all as no stranger to any within all, you too as an each in every of One, un-estranged. ahhhhhhhh...weeeeeeeeeeeeee! O' Glorious Day!

BDeye
10th May 2013, 04:23 PM
Some very nice points, thanks for sending James Allen my way I'll give him a read.

Tutor
10th May 2013, 04:37 PM
my pleasure friend