Mystical experiences vs radical recontextualizations

[now is forever]

@tsuki mhhh you are right - but it’s actually information overflow if you put down all boundaries, and walk through the outside world. its like some lightning just hit you - and you feel dumbfounded, without any direction. i had this situation where i was in the subway station in kreuzberg and there was a guy with a shirt or jacket what had written: follow those who don‘t want to be followed...

and i just thought ok then i just try to follow you into the train and i totally forgot where i wanted to leave the train - and missed my exit and had to change and go back - was quiet funny, still had the bunny image in my head. and there was this screen in the subway that showed some information for children saying something like: the bunny’s are so confused they jump up and down the row or seats or something like that. was quiet funny.

so you see that was total chaos.

Edited August 5, 2018 by now is forever

[Zweistein]

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

@now is forever Is this a mirror or a boundary?:

There are many possibilities - it could be a boundary to some, a mirror to others, a door or gate or even all of those at the same time ?

[tsuki]

@Zweistein If there are 'others' then it is a boundary.

 

[tsuki]

18 minutes ago, now is forever said:

so you see that was total chaos.

@now is forever What sort of silly chaos would that be if it couldn't become orderly like now?
It is a total chaos. To say that something is chaotic is to introduce order.
It is a chaotic chaos.

Edited August 5, 2018 by tsuki

[now is forever]

@tsuki yes but that was when everyone else was me and i was them ?

it‘s the question where in what world you are in, where you make the boundary. 

don‘t forget there are people who embody chaos.

who says there is no order in chaos.

Edited August 5, 2018 by now is forever

[Zweistein]

53 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@now is forever If there is 'the other', then it is a boundary.
Reality is then fragmented into infinite amount of separate pieces, all of which touch via boundaries.
Whatever appears at the boundary is always being projected on from our own personal reality.
Whatever is being put at the boundary by the other is not what appears for the 'I'.
If 'the other' exists, then it is a boundary and the boundary is impenetrable.
If 'the other' exists, the infinite amount of Is are trapped within infinite amount of cells and we are all infinitely lonely.

However, this infinite loneliness is universal and shared. Loneliness is loneliness.
This recognition can be done only by equating the 'I' with 'the other' by meeting him as neither a teacher, nor a pupil.
In this meeting, we acknowledge that all cells are equal.
If all cells are equal, then it is not a boundary, but a mirror.
If it is a mirror, then the only this there is, is I=you=we.

Separation is connection. Duality is oneness. Relative is absolute.
The ground is groundless when you zoom. Can you see it now?
There is no difference where you are. There is no way to tell a master from a pupil.
That can also be seen as something that is shared to ground I=you=we.
That is grounding in groundlessness.

@tsuki If I interprete it correctly, you would like to hear from Leo a statement like this: teacher = pupil/student, right? (at least that's what I would interprete into our whole discussion here ?, that you want to "meet" in the absolute, maybe?)

The question then is: why do you need to hear this from him? What are you projecting then?

If you decide in your mind that teacher = pupil/student, everything ist already solved - that's how I prefer to see it and with that I'm completely at peace.

P.S. Maybe @now is forever, you and I communicate so well because there is no such boundary between us?

Edited August 5, 2018 by Zweistein

[tsuki]

51 minutes ago, Zweistein said:

@tsuki If I interprete it correctly, you would like to hear from Leo a statement like this: teacher = pupil/student, right? (at least that's what I would interprete into our whole discussion here ?, that you want to "meet" in the absolute, maybe?)

The question then is: why do you need to hear this from him? What are you projecting then?

@Zweistein No. Leo is free to do whatever he pleases. So are both of you.
We are all dancing together and in doing that: contemplate.
You ask questions and have my honest answers. In answering your questions I understand myself better.
I hope that my answers help you achieve that as well. I hope that this is why all of you keep dancing with me.
For me, the reason for the contemplation is to see my own folly and become wiser.
It is all in the signature. This is how I embody master=pupil.

What I hope for Leo is to see the Absolute within the relative as I do. I project upon him the unnecessary struggle with it.
This although does not mean that I want him to recognize anything explicitly.
I am entirely content with his participation in this contemplation.
He seems to find reasons to come back to this discussion, so I hope that it serves him as well.

51 minutes ago, Zweistein said:

If you decide in your mind that teacher = pupil/student, everything ist already solved - that's how I prefer to see it and with that I'm completely at peace.

In the post that you quoted, it is painfully clear how foolish I am to pursue this duality any longer.
We are all always connected via the I=you=we. Either by recognizing the mirror, or by shared separation.
From this point of view, this part of the contemplation is complete. We have all made a fool out of me! Thank you!
I do not mean this sarcastically. This is how ignorance works.
These answers do not come from a place of knowledge, but they are dynamically produced in response.
Although I have seen the folly of this duality intuitively, giving birth to it is another matter entirely.

There are, of course, still many things that I intuitively know that I have not yet discovered.
One of them is buried within your question that I'm still contemplating. It is the relationship between paradox and the absolute.
I hope that this response did not discourage you from participating. I am simply being honest with you because you asked a honest question.

Also: to me, it is not a matter of decision. Deciding that master=pupil accomplishes nothing.
This is what I am exploring in the contemplation of your question as well. It's about embodiment.

Edited August 5, 2018 by tsuki

[Zweistein]

41 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein No. Leo is free to do whatever he pleases. So are both of you.
We are all dancing together and in doing that: contemplate.
You ask questions and have my honest answers. In answering your questions I understand myself better.
I hope that my answers help you achieve that as well. I hope that this is why all of you keep dancing with me.

Exactly, they do! It's a pleasure contemplating with you both. I have learned a lot in our discussions.

50 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein
For me, the reason for the contemplation is to see my own folly and become wiser.
It is all in the signature. This is how I embody master=pupil.

Same here. I learn a lot by observing what I'm tempted to write. 

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein

In the post that you quoted, it is painfully clear how foolish I am to pursue this duality any longer.

From this point of view, this part of the contemplation is complete. We have all made a fool out of me! Thank you!
I do not mean this sarcastically. This is how ignorance works.
These answers do not come from a place of knowledge, but they are dynamically produced in response.
Although I have seen the folly of this duality intuitively, giving birth to it is another matter entirely.

Wait, I hope you don't believe that you made a fool of yourself, do you? ? Either we choose that you=I=we made a fool of ourselves here or we choose that you=I=we didn't. I prefer to believe the latter ?

1 hour ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein

There are, of course, still many things that I intuitively know that I have not yet discovered.
One of them is buried within your question that I'm still contemplating. It is the relationship between paradox and the absolute.
I hope that this response did not discourage you from participating. I am simply being honest with you because you asked a honest question.

Also: to me, it is not a matter of decision. Deciding that master=pupil accomplishes nothing.
This is what I am exploring in the contemplation of your question as well. It's about embodiment.

Yeah, there are still so many things to discover... It feels like this is just the beginning ?

Embodiment is a wonderful question to contemplate. Are we ready to reveal how else we embody the you=I=we? ?

[now is forever]

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

@now is forever If there is 'the other', then it is a boundary.
Reality is then fragmented into infinite amount of separate pieces, all of which touch via boundaries.
Whatever appears at the boundary is always being projected on from our own personal reality.
Whatever is being put at the boundary by the other is not what appears for the 'I'.
If 'the other' exists, then it is a boundary and the boundary is impenetrable.
If 'the other' exists, the infinite amount of Is are trapped within infinite amount of cells and we are all infinitely lonely.

However, this infinite loneliness is universal and shared. Loneliness is loneliness.
This recognition can be done only by equating the 'I' with 'the other' by meeting him as neither a teacher, nor a pupil.
In this meeting, we acknowledge that all cells are equal.
If all cells are equal, then it is not a boundary, but a mirror.
If it is a mirror, then the only this there is, is I=you=we.

Separation is connection. Duality is oneness. Relative is absolute.
The ground is groundless when you zoom. Can you see it now?
There is no difference where you are. There is no way to tell a master from a pupil.
That can also be seen as something that is shared to ground I=you=we.
That is grounding in groundlessness.

hmmm... i don‘t know if i get all of it in all it’s meaning. but understanding the infinite loneliness part. on my side is not something new, just wasn’t so present anymore as an experience. we are sharing that in parallels. 

what‘s still difficult is teacher vs. authority.

[Zweistein]

6 minutes ago, now is forever said:

what‘s still difficult is teacher vs. authority.

Oh - that's a good one. Let me contemplate a little ?

Hehe, yeah again, this is just the beginning ??

[tsuki]

50 minutes ago, now is forever said:

hmmm... i don‘t know if i get all of it in all it’s meaning. but understanding the infinite loneliness part. on my side is not something new, just wasn’t so present anymore as an experience. we are sharing that in parallels. 

@now is forever If you have come to the infinite loneliness by yourself, then it means that you meet the other as neither the teacher nor the pupil.
That infinite loneliness is the possibility of seeing that our personal cell is exactly the same as any other cell.
That you can recognize yourself within the other. Whatever the other may be. A person, an animal, or even a book.
The key thing is that this recognition came authentically from you. From within you. Not picked up from the world and made into a belief.
This recognition is the very paradox that turns the boundary into the mirror and lets you experience the I=you=we.

Then you, for example, think that a book is just a dead book that is somehow different from you - you make yourself into a master, or a pupil.
If you can recognize a cell of reality that this book occupies and equate this cell with yours - then you get it. You can experience the I=you=we with the book. Separation between you and a book is nonsensical when you get it, even if it was obvious in the past.

I am purposefully using an example of a book to throw you off. I=you=we from my point of view is not limited to biological beings.
Think about the universal mind which thinks in language called Tao. Anything can be experienced as I=you=we.

You may also want to go back to the original post where I introduced this metaphor to get more material:

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by tsuki

[tsuki]

43 minutes ago, Zweistein said:

Wait, I hope you don't believe that you made a fool of yourself, do you? ? Either we choose that you=I=we made a fool of ourselves here or we choose that you=I=we didn't. I prefer to believe the latter ?

@Zweistein I make a fool out of myself all the time unknowingly. It is only when I understand my folly, I become wiser.
I did not become a fool at the moment of uncovering my folly. I stopped being a fool in this one tiny area.
Ignorance is blindness. It is not an insult to call somebody blind. It's a disability.
I am healing.

[now is forever]

oh the fool is just such a nice symbol, too. i‘m always proud to be part of that species.

Edited August 5, 2018 by now is forever

[Zweistein]

34 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein I make a fool out of myself all the time unknowingly. It is only when I understand my folly, I become wiser.
I did not become a fool at the moment of uncovering my folly. I stopped being a fool in this one tiny area.
Ignorance is blindness. It is not an insult to call somebody blind. It's a disability.
I am healing.

Oh I love how you reframe ?

18 minutes ago, now is forever said:

oh the fool is just such a nice symbol, too. i‘m always proud to be part of that species.

Me, too ??

[Zweistein]

55 minutes ago, tsuki said:

@now is forever If you have come to the infinite loneliness by yourself, then it means that you meet the other as neither the teacher nor the pupil.
That infinite loneliness is the possibility of seeing that our personal cell is exactly the same as any other cell.
That you can recognize yourself within the other. Whatever the other may be. A person, an animal, or even a book.
The key thing is that this recognition came authentically from you. From within you. Not picked up from the world and made into a belief.
This recognition is the very paradox that turns the boundary into the mirror and lets you experience the I=you=we.

Then you, for example, think that a book is just a dead book that is somehow different from you - you make yourself into a master, or a pupil.
If you can recognize a cell of reality that this book occupies and equate this cell with yours - then you get it. You can experience the I=you=we with the book. Separation between you and a book is nonsensical when you get it, even if it was obvious in the past.

I am purposefully using an example of a book to throw you off. I=you=we from my point of view is not limited to biological beings.
Think about the universal mind which thinks in language called Tao. Anything can be experienced as I=you=we.

You may also want to go back to the original post where I introduced this metaphor to get more material:

 

That's why i chose Zweistein as name here in the forum "zwei ist ein" translates to "two is one", duality is non-duality, reality is illusion. I am nothing and all (people, animals, plants, rocks, books,....) at the same time.

Oh what a fool I'm making out of myself now ?

Edited August 5, 2018 by Zweistein

[tsuki]

38 minutes ago, Zweistein said:

That's why i chose Zweistein as name here in the forum "zwei ist ein" translates to "two is one", duality is non-duality, reality is illusion. I am nothing and all (people, animals, plants, rocks, books,....) at the same time.

Oh what a fool I'm making out of myself now ?

@Zweistein Hahaha. Now I get what you meant in your second entry in the journal
Guess what? My profile pic is a solar eclipse

[tsuki]

9 hours ago, tsuki said:

@now is forever Is this a mirror or a boundary?:

On 4.08.2018 at 7:46 PM, Zweistein said:

Let's assume for a minute, we would actually all agree that the paradoxes absolute = relative and student = teacher are true. Could we then also realize that if we keep believing in these two statements (is this being 100% nihilists maybe?), chances for humanity are lower to heal by significant amounts. There are maybe a few people that are able to live a blissful life, but if they don't become teachers, nobody else benefits from what they have learned. So, if more  and more brave heros/heroines start teaching, the more efficient healing can happen, right? 

@Zweistein The reply to this post will be split into several ones, as there are many thing to unpack. 

The metaphorical image I quoted was discussed in terms of the mirror=boundary so far. Let's get into whatever lies within the cell.
Whatever arrives at the mirror=boundary is, by itself, infinitely ambiguous.
Not only that my words as you read them right now are ambiguous by themselves, but the fact that you even see words is dependent on the fact that you look for them. If you were to see the mirror=boundary in its full transparent glory, you would not see anything at all, as you wouldn't even know what to look at.

As I go on a walk in the forest, there are no trees until I look for them. I may be deeply lost in thought, imagining my holidays. Even though I am in the forest, the forest is not in me. There are no trees at the boundary=mirror.

So, all of what I perceive is the projection of my reality. Contents of this reality is what I call beliefs.
Beliefs are not only some ungrounded fantasies that we have. Beliefs also include knowledge.
When I know biology, I notice the structure of a flower. When I know psychology, I notice mental illness.
Beliefs are not at the boundary by themselves. They are what decides what is possible to make out of the ambiguity of the mirror=boundary.

So, whatever I am writing now is entirely a projection of my beliefs.
They manifest themselves at the mirror=boundary as nothing in particular.
As you notice them, you make something out of them by projecting your beliefs.
Therefore, my beliefs are never what you read.
I believe that we agreed on that so far and let's call this the boundary-perspective.

So, what I see you did in your post from the boundary-perspective is:

1. Project a possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (which is unknown)
2. Project the belief that the world needs healing
3. Show me that these two beliefs form a paradox
4. Discard the possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (return to the known)

The paradox from the boundary-perspective seems to bear repulsion to the unknown.

This whole post in which I honestly describe my personal projections and assume that we both share them through our inherent sameness is what constitutes the mirror-perspective. This whole text is based on the assumption of exactness through the described structure and it is what should be used to turn the boundary-perspective into a mirror-perspective. This movement I cannot describe any better than in this post:

From the mirror-perspective, what I=you=we do in contemplation is:

1. Project a possibility of belief that teacher=pupil (which is unknown)
2. Project the belief that the world needs healing and acknowledge its origin
3. Recognize that these two beliefs form a paradox and treat it as a sign of inner conflict between beliefs
4. Re-frame/re-contextualize either of those beliefs so that they do not form a duality of opposites

The paradox from the mirror-perspective seems to bear attraction to the unknown.
For now, I cannot say anything about re-framing because I am completely blind to its nature.
I need to observe myself more as I do it.

Edited August 5, 2018 by tsuki

[Zweistein]

@tsuki

Would it help if you treat the statement "the world needs healing" as reality and the statement "teacher=student" as illusion (it usually is, right?). So, if we want to change reality, it would help if we don't stay stuck in an illusion, wouldn't it?

 

[Zweistein]

3 hours ago, tsuki said:

@Zweistein Hahaha. Now I get what you meant in your second entry in the journal
Guess what? My profile pic is a solar eclipse

Lovely ?

[now is forever]

13 hours ago, tsuki said:

@now is forever If you have come to the infinite loneliness by yourself, then it means that you meet the other as neither the teacher nor the pupil.
That infinite loneliness is the possibility of seeing that our personal cell is exactly the same as any other cell.
That you can recognize yourself within the other. Whatever the other may be. A person, an animal, or even a book.
The key thing is that this recognition came authentically from you. From within you. Not picked up from the world and made into a belief.
This recognition is the very paradox that turns the boundary into the mirror and lets you experience the I=you=we.

Then you, for example, think that a book is just a dead book that is somehow different from you - you make yourself into a master, or a pupil.
If you can recognize a cell of reality that this book occupies and equate this cell with yours - then you get it. You can experience the I=you=we with the book. Separation between you and a book is nonsensical when you get it, even if it was obvious in the past.

I am purposefully using an example of a book to throw you off. I=you=we from my point of view is not limited to biological beings.
Think about the universal mind which thinks in language called Tao. Anything can be experienced as I=you=we.

You may also want to go back to the original post where I introduced this metaphor to get more material:

 

just tried to get that... you know tsuki i’m a designer for products and i learned to work with all kinds of material - i know exactly what i’m talking to when i talk to an object.

so maybe that’s why i don’t get what you say or ask here.

from that perspective all information is made by people, everything is constructed by people with their heartblead. with their hands their health in the line using more or less of their dreams to get to that point where they can survive on it. 

in a book that starts from a tree and the writer - to the people who work on the text like editors, the people who build the machines to turn the wood into paper, build the machines to print, binding the book by hand or with machines. even the glue that’s used to bind the book. and i also know that i‘m just a tiny part of all of that. but i sit at one end of that process one of many with dreams.

i don’t know what to make out of the mystical experience yet if that’s what you want to point at. i sometimes don’t know what’s real and what’s phantasy though. and how it works, and what it’s substance or form is. i just acknowledged it as process until now. i just know it works through symbols as well as through loose associations and some kind of explorative child like mindset. but what kind of real substance there is to it without putting it into form or visual inner experiences. i really have no idea.

all i can say - we have a cinema inside of us, that’s driven by emotion. where that comes from or if there is something paranormal about it. and what substance it is made of is something i try to discover. 

until that it’s phantasy - you see i try to stick to the significant level, to not get lost in space.

Edited August 6, 2018 by now is forever