Search the Community

@Jamajczyk You can't see it, so it only exists like that, as something you can't see. You only imagine that there are bees and snakes unless they are in your direct experience right now, but then you imagine that they can see at all. Some things are personal, some physical, and some cultural, it's wise to know how to differentiate between those, but what unites them is that all these areas are imagined by the Universe, so in the end, it's all imagination, but impersonal imagination, not personal of which you usually think when you hear the word imagination.

Human's evolved to live in small tribal communities; keep your settlements small to avoid the inevitable downfall of any empire; thus, it would do thee well to establish a non-indoctrinated system of faith that centers around the ultimate truth of an impersonal self that is to be cultivated and culminated for the sake of civil prosper.

It seemed to say that the Devil had fetched her, but to be accurate, the dream said it was the wild huntsman, the gundholt, or wearer of the green hat, who hunted with his wolves that night. It was the season of Fohn storms in January. It was Wotan, the God of my Alemannic ancestors who had gathered my mother to her ancestors. Negatively, to the wild horde, but positively to the blessed folk. It was the Christian Missionaries who turned Wotan into a Devil. He is an important God, a Mercury or Hermes as the Romans correctly realized. A nature spirit who returned to life again in the Merlin of the grail legend and became as the spiritus mercurialis. The sought-after arcanum of the alchemists. Thus the dream says that the soul of his mother was taken into that greater territory of the Self, which lies beyond the segment of Christian morality. Taken into that wholeness of nature, and spirit. In which conflicts and contradictions are resolved. He went home and while riding the night train he had a feeling of great grief, but in his heart of hearts he could not be mournful. And this for a strange reason - during the entire journey, he continually heard dance music. Laughter. And jollity. As though a wedding were being celebrated. This contrasted violently with the devastating impression the dream had made on him. One the one hand, music and laughter and it was impossible to yield entirely to his sorrow. Again and again it was on the point of overwhelming him. But the next moment he would find himself once more engulfed by the cheerful melodies. One side was warm and joyful and the other of terror and grief. He was thrown back and forth between these contrasting emotions. This paradox can be explained if we suppose that at one moment death was being represented from the point of view of the ego. And at the next, from that of the psyche. In the first case, it appeared as a catastrophe that is how it so often strikes us. As if wicked and pettiless powers had put an end to human life. And so it is death is indeed a fearful piece of brutality. There is no sense pretending otherwise. It is brutal not only as a physical event, but far more so psychically. A human being is torn away from us, and what remains is the icy stillness of death. There no longer exists any hope of a relationship. For all the bridges have been smashed in one blow. Those who deserve a long life are cut off in the prime of their years, and good for nothings live to a ripe old age. This is a cruel reality which we have no right to sidestep. The actual experience of the cruelty and wantonness of death can so embitter us that we conclude there is no merciful God. No justice and no kindness. From another point of view, however, death appears as a joyful event. In the light of eternity, it is a wedding. The soul attains as it were, its missing half. It achieves wholeness. Many cultures view death as a celebration of this return to wholeness. He had a dream of his father who looked refreshed, they went into Jung's library and spoke to one another and to show off his home and family, his books that he had written - but he saw that his father was preoccupied. His father wanted something from him. His father asked him about marital psychology, but then he awoke - and realized later that it might have had to do with his mother's death. The marriage was not happy and they made typical mistakes couples make. The dream was a forecast of his mother's death. He would have to resume the relationship again but had no better understanding in this timeless state, and needed to speak to someone among the living who would have a fresh approach. Since the unconscious, as the result of it's spatio-temporal relativity possesses better sources of information than the conscious mind, which has only sense perceptions available to it - we are dependent for our myth of life after death upon the meager hints of dreams and similar spontaneous revelations from the unconscious. We cannot attribute to these illusions the value of knowledge let alone prove - they can, however, serve as suitable bases for mythic amplifications. They give the intellect the raw material which is indispensable for its vitality. Cut off the intermediary world of mythic imagination and the mind falls prey to doctrinaire rigities. On the other hand, too much traffic with these germs of myth is dangerous for weak and suggestible minds, for they're lead to mistake vague intimations for substantial knowledge. One widespread myth of the hereafter is formed by the ideas and images centering on reincarnation. India has a highly complex intellectual culture and is much older than the West - the idea of reincarnation is as much taken for granted as among us the idea that God created the world. In keeping with the spirit of the East, the succession of birth and death is viewed as an endless continuity. As an eternal wheel rolling on forever without a goal - man lives and attains knowledges and dies and begins again from the beginning, only with the Buddha does the idea of a goal emerge. Namely the overcoming of earthly existence. The mythic needs of the Occidental call for an evolutionary cosmogony with a beginning and a goal. The Occidental rebels against a cosmogony with a beginning and mere end. Just as he cannot accept that the idea of a static self contained eternal cycle of events. The Oriental on the other hand seems to be able to come to terms with this idea. Apparently there is no unanimous feeling about the nature of the world anymore than there is general agreement among contemporary astronomers on this question. To Western man, the meaninglessness of a merely static universe is unbearable. He must assume that it has meaning. The Oriental does not need to make this assumption, rather he embodies it, whereas the Occidental feels the need to complete the meaning of the world - and strives for the fulfillment of meaning in man, where the Oriental strives for the fulfillment of meaning in man stripping the world and existence from himself. Both are right. Western man seems predominantly extroverted, Eastern man predominantly introverted. The former projects the meaning and considers that it exists in objects. The later feels the meaning in himself, but the meaning is both without and within. The idea of rebirth is inseparable from that of karma - the crucial question is whether a man's karma is personal or not. If it is - then the preordained destiny with which a man enters life represents an achievement from previous lives and a personal continuity therefore exists. If however, this is not so - and an impersonal karma is seized upon in the act of birth, then that karma is incarnated again without there being any personal continuity. Buddha was twice asked by his disciples whether man's karma is personal or not - each time he fended off the question and did not go into the matter. "To know this would not contribute to liberating one's self from the illusion of existence." Buddha considered it far more useful for his students to meditate upon the Nidana chain that is upon birth, life, old age and death - and upon the cause and effect of suffering. I know no answer to the question of whether the karma which I lived is the outcome of my past lives or whether it is not rather the achievement of my ancestors whose heritage comes together in me. Am I a combination of the lives of these ancestors, and do I embody these lives again? Have I lived before in the past as a specific personality and did I progress so far in that life that I am now able to seek a solution? I do not know... Buddha left the question open - he himself did not know with certainty. I could well imagine that I might have lived in former centuries, and therefore encountered questions I was not yet able to answer. That I had to be born again because I had not fulfilled the task that was given to me. When I die, my deeds will follow along with me - that is how I imagine it. I will bring with me what I have done. In the meantime it is important to ensure that I do not stand at the end with empty hands. Buddha had this thought when he tried to keep his students from wasting time on useless speculation. The meaning of my existence is that life has addressed a question to me. Or conversely, I myself am a question, which is addressed to the world and I must communicate my answer - for otherwise I am dependent upon the world's answer. That is a supra personal life task, which I accomplish only by effort and with great difficulty. Perhaps it is a question which preoccupied by ancestors. And which they could not answer. (As I sit here, writing this - this Being speaks. I don't know who it is - the artwork comes from a song called "Stuck in a Timeloop". The Gods must have a slow, drawn, deliberate way of using words - that carry - like playing something of intellectual/metaphyisical substance at .25 and fully understanding what is said, words become LUSTROUS; golden, liquid and FELT - and I will bet the words circle around like that, too - in waves of information, sound, and whathaveyou. I've gotten about ten other signs from the other side, but they come in so fast and there is too much information within them to be able to write it out - which is as it usually goes. There are major things happening across the planet that will change things in one way or another, for better or worse, I don't know - and all the intelligences collected over billions of years culminating into this One Singular moment, and the energy, life, karma, nature, consciousness, awareness... I could make a long list... the witnesses for this event are leviathans. This really is, if there is ever a time - it would be happening Now. It seems odd to say this, because i know that a lot of people have said so in the past - but I can SEE it and FEEL it and KNOW it. And with how the world is changing the way that it is - and the cosmologies that we have... I can't explain it, but the tipping point for everyone is sneaking up and no one can really see it, and I don't know what it is other than an inner knowing, and a process much like Jung's - but at the end of the day you can never fully be sure up until the end. I feel like I am starting to get a good grasp on this, though - but it is not translatable into language. As above, so below. This is especially pertinent to witches/shamans/moons/sorcerers because we have access to some sort of thing that reaches out from the other side. I wonder how they will appear for different people? And I don't much care if people believe me or not, and I don't want anyone to follow me because I am just learning and exploring. I feel that makes me authentic, for those reasons - this morning, a shift in energy - there aren't signs anymore so much as rapid succession of the environment giving me clues about how this reality works - mythology is personal.) The dionysians' side of life to with the Christian seems to have lost the way. Or is the the restless Wotan Hermes of my ancestors who poses challenging riddles? Would I feel to be the resultant of my ancestors lives? Or a karma acquired in a previous personal life might perhaps equally be an impersonal archetype which today presses hard on everyone and has taken a particular hold upon me. An archetype such as, for example, the development over the centuries of the divine triad and its confrontation with the feminine principle? Or the still pending answer to the gnostic question, as to the origin of evil, or to put it another way - the incompleteness of the Christian God image. Through the achievement of an individual, a question enters the world - to which he must provide some kind of answer. For example - my way of posing the question as well as my answer may be unsatisfactory - that being so - someone who has my karma or I myself would have to be reborn in order to give a more complete answer. It might have been that I would not be reborn again so long as the world needed no such answer. And that I would be entitled to several hundred years of peace until someone was once more needed who took an interest in these matters and could profitably tackle the task aknew. For a while a period of rest could ensue until the stint done in the previous lifetime needed to be taken up again. The question of karma is obscured to me. As is also the problem of personal rebirth, or of the transmigration of souls. With a free and open mind, I listen attentively to the Indian doctrine of rebirth and look around at the world of my own experience to see whether somewhere and somehow there is some authentic signs pointing toward reincarnation. A belief is only the phenomenon of belief, not the content of the belief. Jung had a series of dreams that gave him insight into reincarnation but did not find proof in the outer world, but after the experience viewed reincarnation with a new lense - thought without being in a position to assert a definitive opinion. If we assume life continues there we cannot conceive of any other form of existence except a psychic one. For the life of the psyche requires no space - and no time. Psychic existence and above all the inner images with which we are here concerned - supply the material for all the mythic speculations about a life in the here after. He imagines that life as a continuance in the world of images - thus the psyche might be that existence in which the hereafter, with a land of the dead, is located. From this psychological point of view, life in the here after would seem to be a logical continuation of the psychic life of old age. With increasing age, contemplation and reflection, the inner images naturally play an ever greater part in man's life. Your old men shall dream dreams that to be sure presupposes that the psyches of the old man have not become wooden, or entirely petrified. In old age, one begins to let memories unroll before the mind's eye, and musings to recognize one's self in the inner and outer images of the past. This is like a preparation for an existence in the hereafter - just as in Plato's view philosophy is a preparation for death. The inner images keep me from getting lost in personal retrospection. Many old people become too involved in their reconstruction of past events. They remain imprisoned in these memories. But if it is reflective and is translated into images, this is beneficial. Try to see the line that leads through your life into the world and out of the world again. In general, the conception people form of the hereafter is largely made up of wishful thinking and prejudices. Thus in most conceptions, the hereafter is pictured as a pleasant place that does not seem so obvious to me, I hardly think that after death - we shall be sprinted to some lovely flowering meadow - if everything were pleasant and good in the hereafter, truly there would be some friendly communication between us and the blessed spirits. And an outpouring upon us of goodness and beauty from the prenatal state - but there is nothing of the sort. Why is there this insurmountable barrier between the departed and the living? At least half the reports of encounters with the dead tell of terrifying experiences with dark spirits, and it is the rule that the land of the dead observes icy silence, unperturbed by the grief of the bereaved. The world is far too unitary for there to be a hereafter in which the rule of opposites is completely absent. There too is nature, which after its fashion is also God's. The world into which we enter after death will be grand and terrible - like God and like all of nature that we know. Suffering does not entirely cease, granted that what I experienced in my 1944 visions, liberation from the burden of the body, and perception of meaning - gave me the deepest bliss. Nevertheless, there was darkness, too. And strange cessation of human warmth, If there were no imperfections, no primordial defect in the ground of creation - why should there be any urge to create? Any longing for what must be yet fulfilled? Why should the Gods be the least bit concerned about man and creation, about the continuation of the Nidara chain to infinity? After all, the Buddha opposes to the painful illusion of existence, as quote none - and the Christian hopes for the swift coming of this world's end. It seems probable that in the hereafter too, there exists certain limitations, but that the souls of the dead only gradually find out where the limits of the liberated state lie. Somewhere out there, there must be a determinant. A necessity conditioning of the world which seeks to put an end to the after death state. This creative determinant - so I imagine it, must decide what souls will plunge again into birth. Certain souls, I imagine, feel the state of three dimensional existence to be more blissful than that of eternity. But perhaps that depends on how much of completeness or incompleteness they have taken across with them from their human existence. It is possible that any further spell of three dimensional life would have no more meaning, once the soul had reached a certain stage of understanding. It would then no longer have to return, fuller understanding having put to route the desire for re-embodiment. Then the soul would vanish from the three dimensional world and attain what the Buddhists call Nirvana. But if a karma still remains to be disposed of, then the soul relapses again into desires and returns to life once more. Perhaps even doing so, out of the realization that something remains to be completed. It must have been primarily a passionate urge toward understanding, which brought about my birth. For that is the strongest element in my nature. This insatiable drive toward understanding has, as it were, created a consciousness in order to know what is and what happens, and in order to piece together mythic conceptions from the slender hands of the unknowable. We lack concrete proof that anything of us is preserved for eternity, at most we can say that there is some probability that something out of our psyche continues beyond physical death. Whether what continues to exist is conscious of itself, we do not know either. We feel the need to form some opinion on this question, we might possibly consider what has been learned from the phenomena of psychic dissociation. In most cases, where a split off complex manifests itself it does so in the form of a personality. As if the complex had a consciousness of itself. Thus the voices is heard by the insane are personified. I dealt with this phenomenon of personified complexes in my doctoral dissertation. We might, if we wish, adduce these complexes as evidence for a continuity of consciousness. Likewise, in favour of such an assumption are certain astonishing observations in cases of profound syncope after acute injuries to the brain and in severe states of collapse. In both situations, total loss of consciousness can be accompanied by perceptions of the outside world, and vivid dream experiences. Since the cerebral cortex, the seat of consciousness is not functioning at these times, there is as yet, no explanation for such phenomena. They may be evidence for at least a subjective persistence of the capacity for consciousness. Even in a state of apparent unconsciousness, the problem of the relationship between eternal man, the self and earthly man - in time and space, was illuminated by two dreams of mind. In one dream, which I had in October - 1958, I caught sight from my house of two lense shaped metallic gleaming discs which hurtled in a narrow arch of the house and down to the lake. They were two UFOs. Then another body came flying directly toward me. It was a perfectly circular lense, like the objective of a telescope. At a distance of four or five hundred yards it stood still for a moment and then flew off. Immediately afterward, another came speeding through the air, a lense with a metallic extension which lead to a box. A magic lantern. At a distance of 60 or 70 yards, it stood still in the air, pointing straight at me. I awoke with a feeling of astonishment. Still, half in the dream, the thought passed through my head. We always think that the UFOs are projections of ours. Now it turns out that we are their projections. I am projected by the magic lantern as C.J. Jung, but who manipulates the apparatus? I had dreamed once before of the problem of the self and the ego. In that earlier dream, I was on a hiking trip. I was walking along a little road through a hilly landscape. The sun was shining, and I had a wide view in all directions. Then I came to a small wayside chapel. The door was ajar and I went in. To my surprise, there was no image of the virgin on the altar and no crucifix either, but only a wonderful flower arrangement. But then I saw that on the floor in front of the altar facing me sat a yogi in lotus posture in deep meditation. When I looked at him more closely, I realized that he had my face. I startled in profound fright and awoke with the thought - "Aha!" - so he is the one who is meditating me. He has a dream. And I am it. I knew then, when he awakened I would no longer be. I had this dream after my illness in 1944. It is a parable. My self retires into meditation and medites my earthly form. To put it another way, it assumes human shape in order to enter three dimensional existence. As if someone were putting on a diver's suit in order to dive into the sea. When it renounces existence in the hereafter, the self assumes a religious posture as the chapel in the dream shows. In earthly form, it can pass through the experiences of the three dimensional world. And by greater awareness, take a further step toward realization. The figure of the yogi then, would more or less represent my unconscious prenatal wholeness and the far East, as is often the case in dreams a psychic state, alien, and opposed to our own. Like the magic lantern, the yogi's meditation projects my empirical reality. As a rule, we see this causal relationship in reverse. In the products of the unconscious we discover mandala symbols, which express wholeness and whenever we wish to express wholeness, we employ just such figures. Our basis is ego consciousness. Our world, the field of light centered upon the focal point of the ego - from that point, we look out upon an enigmatic world of obscurity. Never knowing to what extent the shadow we form we see are caused by our consciousness. Or possess a reality of their own. The superficial observer is content with the first assumption, but closer studies show that as a rule - the images of the unconscious are not produced by the consciousness. But have a reality and spontaneity of their own. Nevertheless, we regard them as mere marginal phenomena. The aim of both these dreams is to affect a reversal of the relationship between ego consciousness and the unconscious. And to represent the unconscious as the generator of the empirical personality. This reversal suggests that in the opinion of the other side, our unconscious existence is the real one. And out conscious world, a kind of illusion. An apparent reality constructed for a specific purpose. Like a dream which seems a reality as long as we are in it. It is clear that this state of affairs resembled very closely to the Oriental conception of Maya. Unconscious wholeness therefore seems the true spirit of all biological and psychic events and strives for total realization, which in man's case, signifies the attainment of total consciousness. Attainment of consciousness is culture in the broadest sense, and self knowledge is therefore the heart and essence of this process. The Oriental attributes unquestionably divine significance to the self and according to the ancient Christian view, self knowledge is the road to knowledge of God. The decisive question for man is, is he related to something infinite or not? That is the telling question of his life. Only if we know that the thing which truly matters is the infinite, can we avoid fixing our interest upon futilities. And upon all kinds of goals which are not of real importance. Thus we demand that the world grant us recognition for qualities which we regard as personal possessions. Our talent or our beauty. The more man lays stress on false possessions, and the less sensitivity he has for what is essential, the less satisfying is his life. He feels limited because he has limited aims. And the result is envy and jealousy. If we understand and feel that here in this life we already have a link with the infinite, desires and attitudes change. In the final analysis, we count for something only because of the essential we embody. And if we do not embody that, life is wasted. In our relationships to other men, too, the crucial question is whether an element of boundlessness is expressed in the relationship - the feeling for the infinite, however, can be attained only if we are bounded to the utmost. The greatest limitation for man is the self. It is manifested in the experience "I Am" only that. Only consciousness of our narrow confinement in the self forms the link to the limitlessness of the unconscious. In such awareness, we experience ourselves concurrently as limited and eternal. As both the one and the other. In knowing ourselves to be unique in our personal combination, that is ultimately limited, we possess also the capacity for becoming conscious of the infinite. But only then in in an era which has concentrated exclusively upon extension of living space and increase of rational knowledge at all costs, it is a supreme challenge to ask man to become conscious of his uniqueness and his limitation. Uniqueness and limitation are synonymous. Without them, no perception of the unlimited is possible and consequently, no coming to consciousness either. Merely a delusory identity with it which takes the form of intoxication. Our age has shifted all emphasis to the here and now, and thus brought about a demonization of man and his world. The phenomenon of dictators and all the misery they have wrought springs from the fact that man has been robbed of transcendence by the short sightedness of the super intellectuals. Like them, he has fallen a victim to unconsciousness, but man's task is the exact opposite. To become conscious of the contents that press upward from the unconscious. Neither should he persist in his unconsciousness. Nor remain identical with the unconscious elements of his being. thus evading his destiny. Which is to create more and more consciousness. As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being. It may even be assumed that just as the unconscious affects us, so the increase in our consciousness affects the unconscious.

The desire for a new future order of things, substantially different from the present, is religious conviction at its core - the awaiting for the eventual coming of the Kingdom of God - in the external outside world rather than the internal personal sphere. Anti-capitalist sentiment, void of a precise and substantiated scientific analysis backed by empirical fact, becomes a religion in itself, a religion of opposition against an imagined external Other cause of evil and suffering seeking to rationalize and explain inner suffering within and caused by the self. It serves, paradoxically, as the opium for explaining to oneself the causes of his or her one's pervasive feeling of alienation from thy self, thy labor, and other's by numbing the actual inner and experiential alienation with a hyper-abstract extrapolation that sees the cause in an imagined imposed order of capitalism, in its perceived and imagined historical, societal and current economic form, while not being aware that it's a system you wilfully participate in everyday life via participation in capitalist exchange - as the author, Mark Fisher poignantly points out: ''accepting our insertion at the level of desire in the remorseless meat-grinder of Capital. What is being disavowed in the abjection of evil and ignorance onto fantasmatic Others is our own complicity in the planetary networks of oppression. What needs to be kept in mind is both that capitalism is a hyper-abstract impersonal structure and that it would be nothing without our cooperation.'' ''The most Gothic description of Capital is also the most accurate. Capital is an abstract parasite, an insatiable vampire and zombie-maker; but the living flesh it converts into dead labor is ours, and the zombies it makes are us." Capitalist realism, as the author Mark Fisher notes, in his book of the same title, is very far from precluding a certain anti-capitalism. As Zizek has provocatively pointed out, anti-capitalism is widely disseminated in capitalism. Far from undermining capitalist realism, this gestural anti-capitalism actually reinforces it. What we have here is a vision of control and communication much as Jean Baudrillard understood it, in which subjugation no longer takes the form of subordination to an extrinsic spectacle, but rather invites us to interact and participate. But this kind of irony feeds rather than challenges capitalist realism. A film like Wall-E exemplifies what Robert Pfaller has called "interpassivity": the film performs our anti-capitalism for us, allowing us to continue to consume with impunity. "The role of capitalist ideology is not to make an explicit case for something in the way that propaganda does, but to conceal the fact that the operations of capital do not depend on any sort of subjectively assumed belief." "Capitalist ideology", in general, Zizek maintains, "consists precisely in the overvaluing of belief - in the sense of the inner subjective attitude - at the expense of the beliefs we exhibit and externalize in our behavior. So long as we believe (in our hearts) that capitalism is bad, we are free to continue to participate in capitalist exchange." According to Zizek, "capitalism, in general, relies on this structure of disavowal." "We believe money is only a meaningless token of no intrinsic worth, yet we act as if it has a holy value. Moreover, this behavior precisely depends upon the prior disavowal - we are able to fetishize money in our actions only because we have already taken an ironic distance towards money in our heads. Corporate anti-capitalism wouldn't matter if it could be differentiated from an authentic anti-capitalist movement. The so-called anti-capitalist movement seemed also to have conceded too much to capitalist realism Since it was unable to posit a coherent alternative political-economic model to capitalism, the suspicion was that the actual aim was not to replace capitalism but to mitigate its worst excesses; and, since the form of its activities tended to be the staging of protests rather than a political organization, there's a sense that the anti-capitalism movement consisted of making a series of hysterical demands which it didn't expect to be met. Protests have formed a kind of carnivalesque background noise to capitalist realism."

tension (n.) 1530s, "a stretched condition," from French tension (16c.) or directly from Latin tensionem (nominative tensio) "a stretching" (in Medieval Latin "a struggle, contest"), noun of state from tensus, past participle of tendere "to stretch," from PIE root *ten- "to stretch." The sense of "nervous strain" is first recorded 1763. The meaning "stress along lines of electromotive force" (as in high-tension wires) is recorded from 1785. attention (n.) late 14c., "a giving heed, active direction of the mind upon some object or topic," from Old French attencion and directly from Latin attentionem (nominative attentio) "attention, attentiveness," noun of action from past-participle stem of attendere "give heed to," literally "to stretch toward," from ad "to, toward" (see ad-) + tendere "stretch," from PIE root *ten- "to stretch." tender (adj.) "soft, easily injured," early 13c., from Old French tendre "soft, delicate; young" (11c.), from Latin tenerem (nominative tener) "soft, delicate; of tender age, youthful," from a derivative of PIE root *ten- "to stretch," on the notion of "stretched," hence "thin," hence "weak" or "young." Compare Sanskrit tarunah "young, tender," Greek teren "tender, delicate," Armenian t'arm "young, fresh, green." tend (v.1) "to incline, to move in a certain direction," early 14c., from Old French tendre "stretch out, hold forth, hand over, offer" (11c.), from Latin tendere "to stretch, extend, make tense; aim, direct; direct oneself, hold a course," from PIE root *ten- "to stretch." You cannot stretch anything without having two seperate points. The act of stretching is an act in duality with creates tension and then the enivitable release of that resistance, momentum and all movement. Tension could not be created at all if the true nature was not non-resistance and nonseperation. Ok, so this is where string theory comes from, but actually because there is no matter outside Awareness of it, it's the observer holding the attention or stretching thier own attention from observer to object that is the "string", so to speak. Every love song or love story is an exploration of the same sort, string theory is an exploration. Every scientist's cold, logical contemplations and observations are as emotional and subjective as an Elvis song and every Elvis song is as cold and impersonal as a scientist's data.

I don't really think what you're saying is true in terms of no one hiding behind masks. I tend to think this populace here is a bit defensive in general and really trying to become something else than what they are. But what I was saying is that there are a myriad of masculine instincts beyond just the desire to have sex with attractive women. But you would think otherwise on this forum, as many men boil their masculinity down to that quite often. And this reflects an underdeveloped orientation to masculinity. Consider that human instincts exist for a very important reason... survival in the form of self-preservation and species preservation. All of our instincts are geared towards that. The masculine instinct to sew the seed widely with many fertile women is a strong drive for that reason. But consider also, that a pre-birth-control society based on men ONLY owning that part of their masculinity. And that becomes a society that is piss poor in terms of species preservation (and therefore self-preservation) because you have men impregnating lots of women... meaning fathering lots of children that he has no time/ability to father. So, there are other pro-social instincts that come in and temper this instinct, otherwise society doesn't function. In present day, that instinct is still designed to be tempered by those other instincts. The difference now is that we have birth control. And men are having a hard time developing a connection to those other instincts because there is not as much of an impetus to temper the beauty-seeking drive. So, when a man only owns the beauty-seeking drive of his masculine instinct without regard to his other instincts like his instincts towards pair bonding, fatherhood, commitment, community building, etc. this can lead to a society that's out of alignment and a populace of men who are out of alignment with the full depth and breadth of their masculinity... having only a one-note connection to their masculinity. And it also leads to men losing the respect of women who can't be satisfied when a man is fixated upon just one of his masculine drives. And this particular masculine drive is impersonal, so it orients to women more as objects than as people just as a natural outcome of that drive. So, it's both triggering and unsatisfying at once from the female perspective when this drive is not integrated and channeled with the other drives that are more personal.

The more you look for flaws the more you'll see. The more you look for things to appreciate, the more you'll find to appreciate. There aren't two of you, one that can judge the other and find the other lacking or falling short. It's an exploration, an adventure with no end, because what you truly are is not limited and finite, you are infinite. You would not want there to be an end, but if you aren't quite seeing it as an adventure for you to enjoy and aren't having fun, then it's not you that needs to change but your relationship with you. The only real end so to speak is that you will see through the reality of the self that you wish to change, and realize that there are not two of you. Ever notice how you can't "get" a joke if you're stressed, anxious or taking part of it personally? "Shadow work" or light work works JUST like that. As stuff starts to bubble up, it is seen as impersonal and is seen as the Love that it is. As long as there's a self trying to change itself into something it thinks it will like better than what it already is, you cannot see this, because it's not in alignement with the timeless, infinite, whole Love that IS already its true Self, true clarity, the very foundation for change itSelf.

It's all a game. It can't be anything else. Yes, but there is also less attachment to things and the Love is more impersonal and universal rather than localized.

Yea, there isn't even someone or something to be let go of. When something is actually let go of it is the death and the total absence of that thing. If there is still consciousness of what is claimed to be let go of, it hasn't been let go of. Letting go is absolutely impersonal, it has nothing to do with consciousness. Consciousness is holding on to things, and the mind uses consciousness to try and get rid of it. The ultimate let go is that it isn't here now already, the illusion is that there is an illusion.

Meh whatever, don't let this stuff bother you. I probably would have ate this video up and thought all this was a cult too if I was 18 again. Some people just aren't open minded enough or they aren't at the right point in their lives for it. When someone is ready, they are ready. Or maybe never will be! Oh well that's the brutal impersonal universe we occupy. Just be grateful it helped you in the ways it did and pay it forward. But please stoop to their level and turn it into a pissing match of Actualized.Org vs Materialism that needs to be defended like an ideology. That undermines the whole purpose of this larger self/world improvement work. Let people think what they want to think. Everything is exactly perfect just the way it is.

These 3 Mantras is all you need for Physical, Emotional and Spiritual Healing These 3 Mantras is all you need for Physical, Emotional and Spiritual Healing 1. RA MA DA SA SA SAY SO HUNG – Spiritual and Emotional Healing Mantra, also known as Universal Healing Mantra 2. OM SHRI DHANVANTRE NAMAHA – Physical Healing Mantra, Mantra for Good Health 3. MAHA MRITUNJAYA MANTRA – Powerful Physical, Emotional and Mental Healing Mantra 1. RA MA DA SA SA SE SO HUNG ( 00:00 ) This mantra consists of 8 basic sounds: Translation: Ra – Sun Ma – Moon Daa – Earth Saa – Impersonal Infinity Saa Say – Totality of Infinity So – Personal sense of merger and identity Hung – The infinite, vibrating and real. 2. OM SHRI DHANVANTRE NAMAHA ( Starts at 15:20 ) Meaning: A very powerful healing and mantra for Good Health. Dhanvantari is an avatar of Vishnu in Hinduism. He appears in the Vedas and Puranas as the god of Ayurveda. In this mantra we seek his blessings for sound health for ourselves and/or others. 3. MAHA MRITYUNJAYA MANTRA (Starts at 29:33) Maha Mrityunjaya Mantra is one of the Most Powerful Sanskrit Mantra and is said to be very beneficial for physical, emotional and mental health and healing. * MANTRA OM. Tryambakam yajamahe Sugandhim pushti-vardhanam Urvarukamiva bandhanan Mrityor mukshiya mamritat * MEANING We Meditate on the Three-eyed one. Which is present in all of us like a fragrance. May we be freed from the worldly attachments Just like the ripened cucumber is freed from the creeper. Source: https://meditativemind.org/these-3-mantras-is-all-you-need-for-physical-emotional-and-spiritual-healing/ If you want to have your own mantra voice sound go to: https://tupropiomantra.blogspot.com/

Personally, I find this entire scoring system to be totally ridiculous hogwash. You cannot possibly know what someone else has "realized," nor is such a thing even close to quantifiable, as it is ultimately subjective, personal, and impersonal. It just stinks of ego to me, like a spiritual version of armchair quarterbacking. There are better ideas to spend your time on.

He will not return in flesh but from within us. Christos is the impersonal principle (spirit) that will be resurrected in humanity. In a sense it is we who we have been waiting for. “the coming of Christ,” means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of “Christ” Jesus; this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor “in the inner chambers,” nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ – the true esoteric SAVIOUR – is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being. He who strives to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him by his own terrestrial passions, and buried deep in the “sepulchre” of his sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his own inner sanctuary, he has the risen Christ in him.” [The Esoteric Character of the Gospels]

Great perspectives everyone, thank you all for your input! I wondered about this more at a impersonal, collective and metaphysical perspective. And yet this is still sufficient as answers, thanks again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-53950320 Oh COME ONE! Can't I still fall in love with some famous musician like a 14 year old girl INSTEAD OF it just being some sort of weird nondual impersonal, yet intensely personal thing. My mother was so modest, but she totally had the hots for the weatherman for like a solid decade, I could see it in her eyes, and every time she said his name. It was really just her love of predictability, I KNOW it. I'm too fucking smart for my own good. Haha, yeah that's what God said when he decided to scatter all his intelligence all over the place like Humpty Dumpty or the Tower of Babel, except it's all right here and never even left. Sigh. It's too perfect. It's even more perfect than that, but I wanted it to be LESS PERFECT! I think. DAMN IT! Edit: Did I just misspell "come on" as come one". JESUS! This is getting creepy. And also quite delightful. You know my dog who is the best dog I ever had and absolutely loves me more than anyone has ever loved me and is delightful and the most handsome thing I've ever seen also has eyebrows JUST LIKE PENNYWISE the clown? Oh! Spell, like cast a spell! Bahahaha. I just hope the men in white coats are hot.

I don't think so, in my opinion , it is just destroying mind patterns and putting them in right place so your being can show itself, you just think differently and experience differently because things that were before are gone, person is still there, but it is kind of impersonal, Enlightened people can be just deluded by their experience as others, difference they assume they know what is true based on their experience

If it’s based on empathy but is doing nothing for alleviating others suffering, I might put it in the category of unnecessary suffering. I’ve used this categorization of types of suffering for the last 5 years or so. It’s Fourth Way sourced material. In Talks on Beelzebub's Tales, Bennett distinguishes four types of suffering - Unnecessary Suffering, Unavoidable Suffering, Voluntary Suffering and Intentional Suffering. Lets have a look at each of these to see if they can help our understanding: The first is Unnecessary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we incur because of our unreasonable attitudes and expectations towards others, from our ill-will, hatred and rejection of others, from doubt, possessiveness, arrogance and self pity. In other words, suffering arising from our self-importance. The second is Unavoidable Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that comes to us by accident or from events beyond our control, such as interpersonal conflicts, war, disaster, disease or death. Third, we have Voluntary Suffering. This would be the type of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish a personal aim, such as an athlete who disciplines himself to win a race, or a student who labours to get good grades. And finally we have Intentional Suffering. According to Bennett, this would be the kind of suffering that we take upon ourselves in order to accomplish an impersonal or altruistic goal, one that is directed more towards service to others or to the Work, and not for any personal gain. Bennett assumes that this is what Gurdjieff meant by Intentional Suffering.

Sometimes it is necessary to be really straight with someone to get through to them. Other times not so much. I'm usually in two minds about things. On one hand, I can get a more transcendent perspective and have all the patience and understanding in the world once I can see the situation as an impersonal chain of cause and effect. On the other hand, I'm human and have deep wounds relative to this dynamic just as everyone else does. And the wound of the feminine is about being suppressed and ignored. So, on one hand, I can stay in the transcendent perspective where I can see people's embattlements. But on the other hand, these conversations are like lemon juice in wounds. And even though I've acclimatized to the lemon juice by exploring these wounds in myself a lot and I've also healed certain wounds, there are still concentrations of the "lemon juice" that can make me feel really frustrated especially when it comes to insisting something is untrue that I know to be true and vice versa. It's like trying to tell people the sky is blue and they try to tell me it's red. And I say, "Yes, sometimes it's red. But only in certain situations. But most of the time it's blue." And then a bunch of sunset enthusiasts reply, "Nah! It's red. All the books I've read have told me the sky is red. And I experienced that the sky was red a bunch of times." And I go, "I get it that you like it when the sky is red, you're a sunset enthusiast. But generally speaking, the sky is blue." And they go, "What do you know about the sky, you're just a sky enthusiast. We're sunset enthusiasts, so we know better. We've experienced the sky being red many times." And I go

Any emotion can arise but it's no longer experienced as 'MY' emotions. The self-centered experiencer is no longer there to judge emotions as being better or worse than others. Its the personal made impersonal which includes the recognition that the personal was an unreal experience. Its freedom from the need for anything to be other than what it is. ❤

@Superfluo I answer here instead of in that thread. If you didn't see I edited my post a bit, so it says: "Therapy, anti depressants and other medicine, etc." There is no solution to my problems. I have nothing to live for, it's not possible for anyone to love me, there is no hope for me. I'm dead already, I only live because I'm hardwired for survival which seems to be impossible for me to override + I don't want to ruin my parents lives. I suffer pretty much all the time every day and it will be like that for the rest of my life, which I hope will be as short as possible. And all this suffering is for nothing, it's meaningless. (I'm talking about the "what is the meaning of life/everything?" question.) I don't believe in any woo-woo wishful thinking fantasies which people talk about in this forum. I only believe in stuff which has been proved scientifically. But a exception is that I believe in Consciousness after death, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I will keep my memories from this life, I think that's unlikely. I "believe" in the Universal, attributeless, formless, impersonal Consciousness which is present in all living beings, and I think it's immortal and limitless. I wrote "believe" in quotation marks because that word isn't really right for it, because Consciousness is the unbiased witness of also beliefs. So it doesn't matter whether you believe in it or not. It is what breathes life and existence into everything. No advice can help me, no advice has ever helped me, so don't give any advice in the hope of helping me. Just so you don't waste your time. But for your and our pastime/entertainment, you can of course write anything you want. And no, currently I don't want to take psychedelics. I have tried it once or maybe twice, and the hell experience traumatized me and I suspect it gave me some chronic mental disorder. So I would be stupid as fuck to fuck myself up even more with psychedelics.

Yeah, have even watch my physical body on another occasion. There were some individuals that caused this. Leaving the body felt like the lightest thing i could do in the universe. I could see and hear as if all senses became one. My functioning went from 60-70 procentile to 100. I saw my body. It was completely impersonal. A small rock on the asfalt was more personal to me than that body. It also emanated a greyish and somewhat darker energy than the surroundings. Like they say "low vibration" in the spiritual community or something like that. It is part of the path to experience it this way. Much easier to dissidentify from the body and harder to convince oneself again when you have seen that you are not it but have one. Had a satori moment before this happened. Spent a huge time training the WILL after that and penetrated the ego with the WILL until it shattered. Then i penetrated the solidified pain in the solar plexus and in the neck. Integrated the energetic pain from there so to allow the kundalini rise from the hearth into the brain in order to become its ruler. Had this energy rised into the middle between the brows last summer. A whole new sunny field of appreciation opened up in my perception. All possible perspectives became one. I looked at a house with appreciation as i was the man that painted it. I appreciated the curvature of the road as if i was an architect that planned it. I felt the appreciation to go home to meet a wife as if i was in 1960. Looked at the sea and everything was very vibrant and i was everyting and everyone that could be imagined. This lasted for an hour until the energy went lowered back into the head. I think these experiences are just a byproduct of this process. Had many more of them. Seems to be much easier having it. A dimension I forgot to mention that not only the kundalini is causing the particle release but there is something extremely fast that rotates subtly around my body that is also the case for this release process. As i understand these particles are called Skandhas . When we die these particles are left in the earthly atmosphere while the individual is resting in devachan. They act as karmic agents and bring back the individual into a reincarnation cycle. They attach gradually to the new body and build up the present personality of the individual throughout its life. The more i consume these particles the less of a chanse i would come back into earths physical atmosphere again. That is atleast in my theory and i am not sure how close to reality it is. As i have nothing to do here anymore and hopefully most lessons are learned already.

I'm not, but the only one that matters to is the human I am dressed up as. Your mistake is to think that I'm supposed to look a certain way. You're a knowledge addict, you need those hits of understanding, that is why you prefer me in a mystical form rather than this form. This form is exactly where Love is. See? I can talk God language too! Personal pronouns or impersonal ones, it doesn't actually matter, you can't get closer or further away from what is, there is no need for anyone to GET that. Words are sneaky, what is pointed to isn't found in anything it is everything, so it isn't found in the words, it is the words. The pointing is the pointed to.

It is said that a great military general has the breadth of heart to take hearts. Enlightening being is having the heart to take the heart of creation, according to the time. The heart is not taken in terms of a motivational desire. The heart of Creation is taken over in terms of the situation. The heart of creation is the heart of heaven and earth; essence is total, yet it is accessed by one's own "heart of heaven and earth" via an initial breakthrough called the aperture of the Mysterious Female. From then on, all the elements and processes of alchemy are found therein. Desire is the phenomenal aspect of compassion leading one along precisely, in a commitment to seeing the inevitable end (of each particular energy cycle), which is karmic. No, there is no end, ultimately, as situations are the stuff of eternity …meanwhile all sorts of things keep popping up and fading out. So what does one's commitment to inevitability depend on? It is up to the time, which is a very peculiar thing. It is not linear, and it is repeatable. It can be compressed. It turns over on itself. And it has gaps. It is really a strange thing, to write about changing or not changing in the midst of whatever is changing or not changing as if it matters. It’s not called subtle adaption by mistake. In the final analysis, one’s freshness of potential, ongoing, through thick and thin, is what passes through, or, rather, essence is the fundamental expression of Unity without remainder. In terms of abiding in unity, arrival is perpetual. To say one resides in the highest good is the same as saying, in perpetuity, the result is nonoriginated. Just this abiding in the pivot of aware presence, neither coming nor going, is resting in the highest good. When you go along with changes, it’s a new old thing; in not going along with changes, the same fresh energy abides. Actually, it’s the same energy either way, yet in seeing potential, there is actually something to this bit about immortalism, after all. To speak of it in terms of reversal is just a device. Actually, there are no words. Adaption is an unchanging process of alternations, yin to yang, until you die. Circumstances themselves are literally a random inert agent. Pure selfless open sincere desire is the motivation for compassion seeing through each cycle. What takes the heart is the knowledge of timing, and the timing is such only by virtue of one’s access to the impersonal awakened real knowledge I refer to as seeing. The Dharma Eye sees through cause without destroying its momentum, or, rather transforming psychological momentum into potential. It's not that seeing changes anything, one just sees reality as is without originating the personality's habitual pattern-awareness perspective. This means that one’s active duty to inevitability is determined by the celestial timing visible through the course of events by one’s awakened Dharma eye. This is another meaning of using the false to arrive at the true. Situationally karmic cycles are the means by which one discerns the real by increments in the situational context. This is the gradual path en total. We use the gradual aspect of incremental temporality to gather the potential reality of the sudden in order to first, see eternity, then step over it, and continue on in the endless path of refining the immaterial energy body naturally. Eventually each one’s karmic momentum is worn out like an old shoe. For example, in theory, as one's situational involvement starts out, one is barefooted. Otherwise, If you're not barefooted, it's not a new energy cycle, or you are wearing shoes where bare-feet are appropriate, and your basis for spontaneous interaction is cloyed— further compounding falsity. Old polluted energy (psychological/karmic momentum) concretized by the fallacious personality, is perpetuating ignorance of reality by virtue of habituation to carrying the burden of cause from created cycle to created cycle. The point is that being barefoot doesn't depend on thoughts or actions; it depends on reality— and that cannot be forced. By pure acceptance in selfless wonder, without enabling clinging energy or concepts of cessation, through a long process of self-refinement, conditioned psychological energy can be seen to slow down naturally and without accruing additional momentum. Eventually, what's left is… bare feet. The allusion to innocence is not accidental. What ultimately needs to be accepted is that the personality is only a circumstantial element, insignificant in and of itself, permitting facilitation of process within the context of nefarious realms of compounded incremental existence. Accepting it in terms of its function, not in terms of one's identity is most advantageous. Why then is it necessary to be able to see the nature of creation as eternity? Because it is a monumental error to conceive of eternity as being of the nature of the celestial, the immortal, the inconceivable. Eternity is the whole of creation. Creation is ultimately the dregs. When people can see creation as it is and know that its essential nature as eternal is not celestial, then they might hesitate to get bogged down in its particular aspects and ramifications relative to the person. Karma is eternal. Yet one must never forget that it is, above all else, created— so enlightening beings do not work with eternity, they just see it for what it is, and without entertaining self-reflective fascinations, they step over it, without rushing ahead. Continuing on, in terms of presence, is not relative to conditions. It is, rather, that eternity moves on by its own conditional momentum. Awareness in itself, has never moved. Reality is neither relative nor absolute~ this being the raison d'être of enlightening activity. Enlightening beings are whole in the midst of karmic cycles coming and going. This is what I mean by continuing on. It is not that one “moves on” and gains “closure”, in terms of situations. “Closure” is the phenomenon of people successfully rationalizing their denial when they cannot rely on the power of ignorance to forget. Earlier I wrote (in another thread), “Closure is for wimps”. What is the basis of continuing on? Although it is the intent of inherent essential nature presently functioning transcendently in the midst of conditions, it is habitual perspectives of the human mentality hopelessly lost in particular aspects of eternity bound to endless karmic rounds of suffering that stultify the spirit of one’s natural transcendent function. As such, the psychological posture of "continuing on" is evidence of karmic bondage, not innocence. The point of penetrating, activating, and then eventually realizing one’s essential nature is that Eternity can only be transcended by the awake, practiced and developed knowledge of the beginningless, of the causeless. One can simply fall into this realization and benefit by it instantaneously for no reason. No reason is what open sincere intent is. Camping out in one's inherent unborn mind results in seeing. Yet one must learn to act on this knowledge or the memory of sudden illumination itself becomes a barrier, no different than eternity, to advance enlightening practice. How can that be? It is mind alone. Holding the absolute in referential terms to the facetious knower, thinker and liver of life, liberation reverts to bondage on the spot. It is unborn mind. In order to be it, one must continuously see it. And that, alone, is authentic self-refining practice of subtle continuous concentration observing mind. This your own mind right now, as is. This is just your own functional awareness right now. It is not a matter of philosophy because there is nothing whatsoever to understand. Your real identity is Unborn Mind. It's not the experiential absolute— that's just interruption of consciousness. Your own mind right now is the unborn, as such, void of self-reifying pattern awareness. Just see reality as is without thinking right or wrong, good and bad; leaving out personal values for all time. Of course that means nothing to anyone on an intellectual level. And it also has no power for people who are habituated to using awareness in the most limited ways imaginable. Due to habituation solely to the personality’s center of reason/talking that conceives sensuality to be the only means of perceiving and relating to particulars, people cannot awaken to the power and freedom that nothing to understand is something literally and figuratively beyond reason. The beauty of unbending impersonal intent is that it can be used powerfully to facilitate the very (dis)function that reason craps out in the first place. To do that, one must first penetrate causelessness, and set up camp in terms of nonorigination, so to speak. This is the place where one can begin to see. Anyone can understand understanding, yet only a sage can understand not-understanding. Delusion and enlightenment is the same mind whereby the enlightening function can operate freely within delusion, yet delusion is already deluded within delusion, and cannot fathom enlightening perspective in its midst. Truth be told, enlightening perspective has no perspective, as it is the nature of no-mind. When someone doesn’t mind (in the conventional sense), it is not necessarily that they don’t care, it is that there is nothing to understand (relative to their personal habits, whims or perceived vulnerabilities). This is understanding not-understanding perfectly, as knowledge is a matter of nothing to know. That’s really how it is. It’s “What’s to know?” Penetrating perception based on this what’s to know is reality perceived without bias or inclination in the midst of affairs. Mind is the ever-awakening nature of no-mind aware of its unborn, natural inconceivability functioning beginninglessly and presently in perpetuity. Intellectually biased ignorance must be stripped away in order to see this mind by a long long process of correctly oriented self-refinement. It’s not the equivalent of ego as you might know it, or anti-ego as you might imagine it. If you knew that the real aspect of ego is just a function facilitating the personality of the being that is going to die, you might be able to intuit that the function of your real identity is equally selfless and nonexistent. Perpetuation of ego depends on reason, whereas awakening to and penetrating the function of nonoriginated selflessness depends open sincere intent. Intent’s intent is openly sincere open sincerity. This intent is already inherently in a state of potential until the moment you permanently drop your selfish habitual antics perpetuating the false self and awaken to presence as authentic impersonal spiritual function. "Awakening" to this does not depend on sudden enlightenment. It is simply "nonoriginating" delusion by awakening to the Unborn mind. Nevertheless, stabilizing this awakening comes by fits and starts, the very reason for self-refinement. Ego-consciousness fixating of accomplishing "sudden realization" is to be pitied— even should it succeed. Why? It is analogous to picking a fruit too early. It's not ripe. It's not edible, or if it is, it won't beneficial or as beneficial to the being as if it had been left alone until it "dropped off" naturally. Ask me why I know. Please don’t be hung-up on the personality as you’re stuck with it (mine and yours)!! I’m living proof of that for those of you who are hung up on my supposed narcissism. The personality doesn’t go anywhere. In effectively realized individuals, it just takes up its position in service of the autonomous illumined being within, which has never entered the sphere of the created. Nothing changes except a little swap, like musical chairs whereby the personality permanently attains balance naturally, and continues on by not clinging to situations, places, people and things— because finally, much less is invested in ego function's perpetuation. So, the world at large is not created, while the self-observer (awakened to one’s own unborn awareness) isn’t created as well— and one proves it in everyday ordinary affairs again and again and again. It’s an all-at-once, all-or-nothing proposition (not to discount ones inexorable fits and starts). It is seeing that all things are the nature of awareness, which is unborn. Stabilizing this perspective is the gradual work of self-refinement before and after (in the case of the sudden, should that happen). It’s called work because the world doesn’t know… Creation is a bitch. Do you think she’d go along with you, if she knew? If she knew, she’d get your ass AND whatever’s going along with it too. That’s what she already got your ego to do. Ya gotta give that bitch the slip (without its knowing) and steal back your inherent presence. AND THAT’S NO JOKE. It is called inconceivable spiritual adaption taking over creation and stealing its potential without admitting one’s own power for a reason, it seems. ed note: typo 12 paragraph

I'm not sure about it because if the person is the experiencer in terms of ultimate authentic experience, that's not it. Why? Because there is no person. If it's you who is accomplishing by actions and momentum, that basically proves that whatever you're accomplishing isn't it. On one level, these things are cumulative, as long as potential is not leaked habitually. Nevertheless, it's not a matter of "progress." Whatever the nature of the experiencing, just avoid anticipatory consciousness, which strengthens the very thing that obstructs nonpsychological clarification. The deal is, the nature of reality is already complete, perfect and selflessly unified; that's one's inherent identity right now, so realizing this in terms of this shouldn't (can't) be dealt with by virtue of an instrument as crude as the psychological apparatus— simply because its operative function obscures reality. Awakening to nonpsychological awareness and nurturing its subtle function requires self-refining processes which serve to reform and revert the psychological apparatus (reversing its development) into its original supporting role (to nonpsychicological functionality). Sudden realization should be seen as a naturally occurring validation/proof of the foregoing self-refinement instead of a bulldozing effort to arrive at a predetermined experiential parameter. Taoism says to refine the self (first) and await the time (of proof). Strive to activate the mind without dwelling on its contents in terms of the scene before your eyes, and activate the natural subtly adaptive impersonal function by seeing through phenomena without denying their characteristics. That's dealing with things as they are without employing "belief" in their existence. The only reason I say this is because in the aftermath of the sudden, it's all you will be doing anyway. ed note: add last line

Eckhart is correct. "The witness" as most people try to concieve it,is not a position of playing as a "witness-er", standing back and watching thoughts,feelings emotions etc.,. That position, is the I-thought/identity/ego/ playing the role of not being a thought,watching thoughts. It can seemingly play the two positions of I and You. It can refer to itself as I(singular individual) and can also refer to that same 'I" it was just playing ,as You (i.e., other),as if playing the part of a separate individual/therapist/criticizer to the "I" singular individual. It can treat itself as subject and object. But the 'trick" it's playing is that it's one thought playing different"personal" roles,and being that it is only a thought/idea,it has no existence. Realizing this is realizing there's "no-self". What one thought and identifiied as "I",me,myself" ,was/is , just a made up thought/idea,and thus not a reality. The real and only non- individual/,impersonal,undivided "subject" is the one,eternal,boundless,timeless Existence-Reality alone.