A Fellow Lighter

Dear Light I think I am tired now. I don't know, I think I am tired of playing ignorant.. even if I may or may not doing it on purpose, but.. there's no point stalling and pretending anymore. I want to live in truth. Remember I asked if I can be enlightened without being frightened? Well I think I know the answer now. And it's a definite no. All my life I've been frightened by new things, new experiences, until I got used to them and understood them. In all those times I was learning, I was growing, so why should it be anything different now? But you know what else I realized? It's that the real darkness doesn't lie ahead in the unknown, but it resides right here, in comfort zone, in the realm of the ignorant, where there can hardly be any learning and growing. I've realized that true growth and learning comes from befriending death, because growing into something new means the death of the old identity - death is transformation, it has never been cessation. My dear Light, you've been with me thus far, surely it is for a purpose. So whatever it is, please know that I am now ready for it. I'll will try harder to acknowledge you in every moment of my being, and in return I pray there is revelation of my Truth - what I am and what it means to be me. So go ahead, frighten me, for I now know that what I am is too immense to be prepared for. I only have my mortality to offer, let it be put to the ultimate use in teaching me what I need to learn. Amen

This is certainly perceptive. The topic of belief is undoubtedly a broad one in the context of spirituality. In a reality with no law but the self, a reality where anything goes, for everything is one.. belief acts as that gravity in the space of limitless possibilities thusly creating a seeming Law of Attraction. At a personal level, one may say that belief is law, for in the end, one can only act out his beliefs. But it is also bondage, for belief regulates behaviour. What one believes in is what one is willing to live by. This belief-governed behaviour is what offers context, a background in which one may learn the truths of existence. Though it is bondage, belief is certainly a position of vital purpose. Without believing in anything how would one know what is true and what is false, how will one learn anything when his world is so neutral? Belief is like that core of an atom being circulated by those particles we call thoughts. This is the matter of reality, without it.. the world will lack depth and meaning. The image would only be an image, and not a thing to be interacted with. You are perceptive.

It's Raining No, it's pouring. And every drop is a drop of love, a drop of caring, of feeling and emotion. I feel so overwhelmed by this much knowing... I am everywhere, it's chaos. I feel so powerless, my only power is darkness - ignorance - fear and deception, but that power is meaningless, it is nothing compared to the power of love which overwhelms me so. I now see that I cannot control, instead, it directs, taming it is like trying to hold the ocean. It raining truths, I need to find a way to channel it, or I'll be flooded by it. I need to become like a river, I need to find a focus.

@Someone here yes

What have I negated here? It seems that you have ascribed to reality an absolute framework which suggests absolute cohesion of everything that is finite. Knowledge without reason is not an impossibility, for which law would deem it an impossibility? Would it be a philosophical law? I have negated nothing here, in fact, if anything, this is the positing (acceptance, acknowledgement) rather than negation of truth. Otherwise explain to me how I'm being negative.

Is there a truth outside of consciousness? And is there a truth outside of knowledge? Because, according to me, there is a difference between knowledge and consciousness, and that is - knowledge is more fundamental or more essential. For there to be anything, something must have known of its possibility, or intuited it, or awakened to it, whatever... But nothing comes out of nothing, only knowledge can offer the potential of there being a something. This is what I find to be an impossibility: the absence of knowledge.

@Reciprocality This is what we agreed upon earlier before delving in the matters of intuition, yes? I also agree with this, and I'd also regarded this as our common ground in discussing imagination. In my sentience, consciousness is the intelligence that enables the experience of things X. Without consciousness, there is only the intuition that there could be something, a vibe so to speak of. Do you find this to be true, as well? Yes, because consciousness enables sensibility, nothing else enables this. Okay, so this is where you lose me: What do you mean by “intuits it contents”? Is the world of experience something to be intuited? How does that work? It is truth and obvious, if it were not, then we would not even be discussing it as a matter, as there would be no way to make it relatable to the other-self. But because you also experience what I experience, we can commune these experiences, and discover them to be truths. Is this not how the world world works?

What am I missing? See, one may argue there is no reason at all you know you exist, perhaps it's simply intuitive. But go on, what would be the science? And how would it manage to not be as silly as attempting this with philosophy?

There is nothing I wish to correct about, I am not looking for a clone who will eco my voice. I am looking for your world, and my only chance in finding it is through a rigorous series of Q and A. So, I am sorry if I come across dismissive. If you could show me where I try to correct you then I'll change my manner of trying to understand. So far, my impression of your world seems all to be philosophical. I am only wondering what you make of my world? Then explain your ideas to me as though you were explaining them to a child. I am not a philosopher, I did not learn the world through contemplation. I learned it by observing it's patterns, and in relating these patterns to my fellow Lighters, I associate the pattern with a word I see fit in representing the nature of pattern. I have no ideas to share with you, in terms of philosophy, I have nothing to offer. Only my experience of the world is what I can offer. So as far as the integration of differences goes, I am literally at the mercy of the language you use to communicate with me. There more simple it is, the more smooth this interaction will be. The more complex, the more bumpy, to the point where one feels negated by the other. I do not wish to negate you, Lighter; I wish to be enlightened.

Precisely. You are most welcome.

Yes, I will language police as much as I have to because I care of your impressions on my statements. When I say outgrow, and you say escape, this is not the same thing. So are you not distorting my words so that they become more acceptable in your accordance? If there is no coherence in what we say, we must acknowledge it, acknowledge the difference, because we are different, and learn what makes the other person different: what have you experienced that I haven't experienced, and how so? This is expanding awareness. Agreeing on statements that don't mean the same thing is a rather ignorant thing to do in the pursuit of awakening, because we are both aspects of reality: to ignore the other-self is to ignore an aspect of reality. So, the fact that you have chosen to use the term escape in the place of outgrow hints at something about you and the world. That is what I wish to learn, nothing else.

How do you know this? How do you know this? Great, but how do you know?

Do you believe in chaos?

Not escaping, my friend - outgrowing. Growth, transcending, evolution, whichever term you prefer - is the point of communing. We wish to outgrow our current ‘self’ because our intuition, our light bringer, tells us that there is more to us than this. Otherwise, why would you want to escape yourself if knew that being human is all you are?

No. Objects are intelligence enabling visibility of that which is naturally invisible. Yes, what you've come to learn to be objects.. are an expression of a vibration. Like a tone in music yes, however, even music is but one expression of vibration. The possibility is rich in abundance, the only question here is availablity - making that which is possible.. available. This is what I refer to as work. Mankind is already in tune with the frequency of manifestation, his creative, generative, technological advances are the very proof of that. In deed, mankind is the only creature on this planet who is studying the laws of manifestation. The only question is.. immediacy. You see, there is no difference between manifesting a cup of tea out of pure void, and actually starting from scratch and discovering herbs for for tea, making the cup of tea out of clay, boiling the herbs and finally pouring the tea in your newly designed cup. In both of these scenarios is the miracle of manifestation, however, one is more immediate than the other. You getting the rose is one example of you, using the intelligence that is your four-limb body, to inform vibration in presenting you with a rose. It's still manifestation. It can be defined in whatever way the student is ready to understand it. Those who have awakened to it see that it requires no definition, or it speaks for itself. Frequency is the frequentness of a reality, in it's be-ing - being there/here. For instance, this world is more frequent than your dream world; the furniture around you is more frequent than the picture of a furniture in your head; the work that lasts long is more frequent than the work that has ceased to be. All these are instances of what frequency is. Make sense?

There is a difference between knowing something and knowing how to relate the knowing of that something. How will you make relatable to me that which you know? Can you make it relatable? Because if not, then what is the point of speaking at all? So much for not caring about the rules of language, right? There is actually one point in trying to communicate with another person, and that is to achieve unison: merging one's personal-experiential knowledge with another's personal-experiential knowledge is exactly what it means to commune - to become one. I cannot help but speak from a mystical pov; you cannot help but speak from a philosophical pov - though it is in English, these are already two different languages on their own. And yet, we try. Why is it so important that our experiences be relatable? What will this change? Man doesn't seek knowledge, for s/he already possesses it - is what I'm saying. Man seeks something more profound than that. S/he seeks meaning, what does it mean to be So don't discourage yourself in caring for something as hallow as the rules of language. They are all effort to something deeper, whether you're aware of it or not.

@Reciprocality what do you know?

Okay... What you must understand is this: everything (plants, minerals, animals, the environment, reality) is all consciousness. And I don't mean consciousness as awareness, I use the term as psychologists use the term when they are referring to one's sensory perception, differing from a dog's sensory perception, from a bat's sensory perception which is colour-blind, from a leaf's sensory perception. However, I also use the term on a much more broader and holistic sense, I use it to refer to the very beingness of an entity (biotic or abiotic), and the beingness of a so called “reality”. If you grasp the above then this is what it's leading to: the “event” isn't occurring in consciousness, the “event” is consciousness stationed by a frequency. Plants don't vibrate, plants are the expression of a vibration. No, because the term “symbol” refers to something that is arbitrary. One may, rather, see that which s/he has objectified - the “object” - as intelligence. Look at it like this, there is the invisible substance of all matter which is pure vibration, the intelligence enables you to learn of this vibration by representing it as your environment , thus allowing you to inform or be informed by the vibration. This representation is not arbitrary for it applies to every soul that is learning of vibration by streaming human consciousness. Also, do not see the ‘object’ as a pattern, see it as that which is live or alive, even when it is still it is breathing, much as the tissue of your skin is breathing. This life is stabilized by a frequency. Am I making sense?

Frequency is not imagined, it is worked - quite literally, like you waking up everyday of the week and going to work. The term pertains to the livelihood of every biotic and abiotic entity in existence. Neither does it alone create, it is, yes, an essential aspect of creation. Frequency is all around and about us. It is what holds objects into place, for everything in reality is stationed by a frequency. The integrity, structure and solidity of everything, owes itself to a frequency. Without frequency, the true nature of reality would most certainly be exposed - that is.. the dissipative, psychedelic, nature of consciousness. You've probably heard people using terms such as “states of consciousness”, these states would not be without frequency, there would be no state. Make sense?

Last night I experienced a rather negative charge at my earth energy-centre, without knowing whether it was due to the works of a negative Lighter or my Psyche attempting release - discharge. This is the second most heightened experience I've had with an energy-centre this week, the first was with my light energy-centre. If the experience was a purification process, then I bless it and pray the Light sees it through. If it was an attack, then I am thank the Light for remaining strong and bright enough for me to notice the presence of my negative companions.

Why? So that it can make sense? ? But that's exactly what I'm saying, though. However, of course, when I say this, it will come across as the most meaningless statement one could make rather carelessly and dry. You say that there is a priori intuition of those things outside consciousness that we may define as (X), and that it is through the sensibility of space that we can learn of their presence and imagine their identities into reality thus rendering the (X) identifiable. This is how I've come to understand you thus far. Now, what I'm saying (from a mystical pov) is this: There - here - is only Knowledge. This knowledge is not the knowing of things (X) or information, no. This knowledge is nonduality complete - it is knowledge of the knowing of the knowing of the knowing for infinity, and never the knowing of a what or who or why and etc, no. Thus, knowledge is knowledge. It is nonduality, it is whole, and it is here, with us and within us, it is the absolute. To awaken to this requires no reasoning or induction of any kind, it merely requires a mere moment of silent observation. Is this not obvious enough? If I were to ask you, “How do you know that you exist?” won't the most honest and yet simplest response be, “I know, because I know.” ? Is this not the truth? You know that you exist because you know in the first place? See.. Knowledge is the first place; it is, in fact, the first and last; it is, in truth, the only place. Thus so, there is nothing outside of existence, for there is nothing outside of Knowledge. Then, from this Knowledge, arises that dormant serpent which you have constantly referred to as intuition, what the Indians call “Kundalini”, what my people call uMbilini, and what the religious scriptures call “Lucifer” which literally translates to 'The Lighter', or 'Light Bringer', for it is this very intuition that awakened Adam and Eve in their edenic, nondual, nature of consciousness. Intuition is secondary to Knowledge.

I will make it quite short for you, the term reasoning doesn't refer to many things as you suggest. The term refers to a common experience, that is.. making sense of the senseless through rational thought - this is to reason, is it not? Just look. Is this not what you attempt to do when you reason? And if the thought is not a rational then it is anything between guessing and being hysterical, is this not what goes on in the our collectives?

No, not to survive - to live. One's mortal existence is hardly affected by not having a personal belief structure, for if s/he has none then s/he may simply study and adopt the beliefs of another. I am not talking about self-preservation here, I'm talking about living or acting or taking responsibility, not just merely existing. And, again, I don't find it necessary to differentiate between truth and belief, as this is plainly obvious in my accord: Truth is here, right now, in its absolute. And belief comes secondary to truth, for it is in the finite actions that one chooses to make. But I wasn't really on about differentiating between truth and belief. I just wanted to know if you thought there could be a way to see if, in evening our footing, we could tell if it is a lingual problem on my behalf or a “a too much belief” problem, again, on my side.

And this is precisely why I would say with confidence that philosophy won't fulfill this aim without incorporating other dimensions such as mysticism into its application. Reasoning is philosophy's only go-to tool in sorting belief from truth, is it not? And how am I being cynical? You tell me what the term reasoning refers to and tell me if it doesn't sound like the most cynical of cynical things one can come across?

In all honesty, I don't consider myself learning the nature of reality without belief, so I will understand why one might say that there is too much belief. Although, I am not sure about the how much statement of it. But on my accordance with life, it seems as though it is impossible to live without any belief/s. According to me, it is belief that governs behaviour, not rational thought. So almost everyone, if not absolutely everyone, is acting and speaking from a somewhat personal-religious view point. What do you think?