Inevitability defines Situations

[deci belle]

There are those whose virtue enables the activation of the dharma-eye expressing the inevitable without resorting to personalistic inner-vision.

Ironically, there are those whose misuse of reason is evidence of the mis-application of one's inherent enlightening capacities which is like hiring a rocket-ship to scratch your navel— obviously much will go unnoticed from a perspective relative to the rat-eye of ego-consciousness.

Intellectualism simply isn't the correct tool to use to discern enlightenment, much less work with its potential.

The point is, enlightenment isn't somewhere else. It's your own mind right here right now.

Because reality is perpetually resultant within the delusional sensory perception of those bound by changes without their knowledge, formal illusion of the three times and psychological aspects is called ignorance.

For those whose Dharma-eye sees Change by knowledge, the pattern of inevitability is the basis of enlightening activity's transcendent function whereby its responsitivity has no dependence on conditions. This is because selfless response springs from the essential nature of the situation itself, not admitting one's own power.

The situation, being bound by karmic evolution, is a mass of fire with nothing for one's nonpsychological awareness to discriminate outside the inherent potential of the aware energy constituting the formal. This is a way to describe the operation of turning the light around. Turning the light around is working with what is the same. The elements of causality are not the same; they are difference.

Those who depend on crutches of intellectual pursuits are unable to see beyond the conventional myopic perspective of selfish personalities of self and other.

Those who are familiar with working directly with essence, know the meaning of the alchemical saying, "Work with what is the same". Sameness is the basis of reality of one flavor. So inevitability is objectively sensed by those who see potential within the parameters of any given situation without their getting caught up in "weaving hairs" with elements of difference, that is, clinging to the created aspects of reality constituting karmically evolving psychological momentum.

Another taoist saying is "Don't use what is seen, use what is unseen". The unrefined elixir is gathered from what isn't seen, so taoists only use the essence.

Inevitability defining situations is the pattern of reality inherent in the situation itself from its inception; its incipient point of perpetual light issuing forth from the pivot of awareness of enlightening beings no different than the ineffable essence of the situation itself. Mind is one. This singularity is nonoriginated unity not apart from one's self or other. That's how one can operate selflessly. Selflessness is the nature of reality— not the relative "goodness" of the person.

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no difference between form and essential nature. The working definition of enlightening being is seeing this. Ignorance is defined by not seeing this. Therefore, an approach to enlightenment justifying adding or denying anything to reality is simply error.

Nothing is outside of oneself. Nothing is not oneself. One simply rides the pattern of inevitability in the course of adaption to conditions, advancing and withdrawing the fire according to the time. What is fire? It is application of insight, nothing more. Not applying insight is "withdrawing the fire", nothing less.

Habitual application of insight unawares is called "a running sore". Resultant justification of such activity is "adding salt".

For those who see sameness constituting Complete Reality, nothing much really happens~ it's the darnedest thing. They know nothing has ever, nor will ever violate one's potential resting at the cusp of on the verge of going into action in perpetuity. Those who see the emptiness of Cause know there is nothing comprising the great mass of fire blazing in your skull spinning galaxies eternally. It's just the void. STEP OVER THE WHOLE OF IT. Fascinations are of your own making. Reality awaits.

Because situations are empty from beginning to end throughout the course of kalpas without beginning, enlightening beings have never strayed from the inevitable constituting situations. Throughout the totality of evolutionary status, one has never moved from the inevitable result without beginning.

Enlightening activity is intimate sensitivity to inevitability; what follows is selfless accord within each situation. Since one is embedded in the pattern of reality, what would one dare to choose? It's all the same perpetual result for those who see.

Those who see reality play in Samadhi.

 

 

ed note: change tense in 8th paragraph; change word in 10th; add paragraph 14

Edited October 20, 2018 by deci belle

[Jack River]

2 hours ago, deci belle said:

The fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no difference between form and essential nature. The working definition of enlightening being is seeing this. Ignorance is defined by not seeing this. Therefore, an approach to enlightenment justifying adding or denying anything to reality is simply error.

Would you say intelligence doesn’t accept or deny, but observes? Intelligence sees. 

[deci belle]

Hi Jack~ I call "intelligence" the conditionally relative aspect of conscious knowledge overlying the nonpsychological nature of real knowledge. But if you mean to employ the word "intelligence" as a reference to one's [spontaneously effective] use of immediate nondiscursive knowledge, then I would make a slight modification to the wording:

Quote

Would you say intelligence doesn’t accept or deny, but observes? Intelligence sees. 

Seeing is objectively sensing what is, as is, in terms of selfless nonpsychological awareness, no different than your own mind right now— yet in terms of spiritual subtle adaption, there is no energy employed as an act of affirmation or denial as knowledge is immediate. It seems I am splitting hairs, but the reason I am making the distinction is that acceptance/denial is relative to created energy, whereas enlightening activity as defined by "turning the light around" is already keyed to potential, so my modification to the quote is:

Quote

The Dharma Eye sees through phenomena without denying their characteristics. Selfless objective observation is the seeing intelligence.

People must be careful to keep in mind that such "intelligence" is not found beyond one's own mind right now. Real knowledge arises spontaneously as a matter of course (not just for those awakened to their selfless nature) and those who practice subtle observation of mind are eventually able to recognize its appearance in the midst of habitual thought-streams. This is why 24/7 subtle observation of mind is such a critical aspect of authentic self-refinement. There are other reasons as well that I won't go into at this time.

The critical aspect of spiritual adaption to situations is borne by the inherent pattern of the situation itself, so I am being hyper-sensitive to the use of the word "accept" in the context of your statement because virtuous nonresistance would seem to imply just what you wrote, yet I am making the distinction between "accept" (so as not to imply that it means "affirm"), as opposed to "deny", for the benefit of others who may read this and mistakenly assume that "accept" is relative to the person— which it isn't. Since seeing is relative to selfless nonpsychological awareness, there is no superfluous affirmation or denial to speak of in the context of enlightening perception.

Inevitability as a watchword for enlightening activity means that the karmic nature of all created things (including situations) are destined, in that every created cycle is embedded in its own matrix of potential or "situational DNA". Enlightening activity is just the practical knowledge of karmic patterning and furthermore watching for its critical junctures. All situations are cyclical. This is what make their study (in terms of taoism) a science.

The Art of War states that "victory depends on the enemy" in that conditions conducive to apropriate action in response to developments cannot be manufactured beforehand. One must await their inexorable inevitable development. One must know what is being awaited. One must know the ground of life and death and be situated advantageously unbeknownst to anyone. The word "enemy" signifies the nature of the situation itself in that one's impersonal adaption depends on its (the situation's) parameters exclusively. This is why victory depends on the enemy. The Art of War is an ancient classic long included the taoist spiritual canon.

This is why I say that one must, in fact, be ultimately vulnerable in order to carry out the subtle operation of the Great Vehicle as a Tathagata in terms of Complete Reality neither ordinary nor holy.

The critical junctures of Change that I speak of are the ground of life and death. The alchemical term is the Aperture of the Mysterious Female:

Chapter 16 of the Tao te Ching

Quote

Attain the climax of emptiness,

preserve the utmost quiet:

as myriad things act in concert,

I thereby observe the return.

Return is the critical juncture(s) of all situations, material and immaterial.

As in all things, the celestial pattern is expressed as the function of its process.

Ego is a valid function, therein lies its value to the organism. It is not a thing. It is empty, utterly attributable to conditions.

All created cycles have these critical junctures: the times when the gate and door defining the aperture of the Mysterious Female occur.

Chapter 6

Quote

The valley spirit not dying

is called the Mysterious Female.

The opening of the Mysterious Female

is called the root of heaven and earth.

Continuous, on the brink of existence,

to put it into practice its use is not forced.

Therefore, it is to be understood that it is, in fact, used. It is also to be understood that its function is the unchanging unified fabric of inconceivability (referred to as gossamer silk in some volumes of the TTC) which is subtly operated in the context of ordinary situations according to the time by those with the power to comprehend its function in order to influence events.

These two chapters from the Tao Te Ching do not just refer to mystical experience, as the celestial pattern permeates reality. Adepts arrive at partnership with creation, and are therefore not subject to its karmic cycles. There is no escape, yet liberation in the buddhist sense means that in the midst of delusional process, one does not go along with creation in that conformity with essence is preternaturally outside the primal organization of created incremental time and space. As I have mentioned many time before, it's an utter inconceivability, which is our nature in terms of human being.

There is a chapter in the Kuei ku-Tzu called Opening and Closing. Let me clarify a few terms: heaven refers to the inner mind; earth refers to nature, the essential ground of reality; society, man, the sage, refers to a function of human potential.

Quote

Opening and Closing

Let us consider how ancient sages existed between heaven and earth. Being the leaders of others, they watched the opening and closing of yin and yang in order to direct people thereby and knew the doorway of survival and destruction. Assessing the ends and beginnings of all types, they arrived at the principles of human psychology and saw the foresigns of change therein; and kept vigil at the doorway.

Therefore the Way by which sages live in the world has always been one; while its transformations, which are endless, each has a specific purpose. Sometimes it is yin, sometimes yang, sometimes yielding, sometimes firm, sometimes open, sometimes closed, sometimes relaxed, sometimes tense. For this reason sages consistently keep watch at the doorway and carefully examine what should precede and what should follow. They assess strategies, measure capabilities, compare strengths and weaknesses of technical skills (of one's own people [self] and that of others').

Assessing objectively and adapting impersonally is sage activity, whether it is accomplished by generals, buddhas, or enlightening beings. In every case, it is accomplished by those whose hearts have the power to take hearts.

"Sages are not humane; they see all people as straw dogs."

The Mysterious Female is not a place; it has no location. It arises naturally in the course of created karmic cycles. It is indicative of the celestial design. Those who see the opening and closing of the gate and door of the Mysterious Female are able to transcend Change while abiding in the midst of its changes. This is enlightening activity.

Grain by grain, one gathers the elixir.

Occasionally, a person will spontaneously comprehend an aspect of the phenomena of the secret of the celestial mechanism and conclude, "so what". This is what is referred to as knowing without the ability to act on knowledge. If one knows but is unable to act on that knowledge, it is the same as not knowing. It is simply not having the requisite personal power to act on knowledge. Authentic self-refinement is the means to gather and amass the potential (personal power) to see reality and act on knowledge by non-doing.

Ordinary ignorant people whose personal power is inadequate to use energy aren't thus. Using it is a matter of amassing the energy to partake of energy. This energy is the nature of the Way and its Power. The power of the Way is another name for Virtue. Virtue is the inherent quality of enlightening being. Awakening to enlightening qualities is the result of self-refinement.

What is refined? The human mentality.

 

 

ed note: parenthesize "enemy" in 8th paragraph

Edited October 20, 2018 by deci belle

[Forestluv]

7 minutes ago, deci belle said:

Occasionally, a person will spontaneously comprehend an aspect of the phenomena of the secret of the celestial mechanism and conclude, "so what". This is what is referred to as knowing without the ability to act on knowledge. If one knows but is unable to act on that knowledge, it is the same as not knowing. It is simply not having the requisite personal power to act on knowledge. 

This seems to assume personal agency and free will,

[Jack River]

 

 

15 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is what is referred to as knowing without the ability to act on knowledge. If one knows but is unable to act on that knowledge, it is the same as not knowing

I see it in the sense not being able to SEE, as in intelligence/insight, because of the psychological attachment to thought/knowledge. Is this pointing of to the same thing, yet the context is different @deci belle?

Edited October 20, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

16 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This seems to assume personal agency and free will,

It will be difficult to communicate if we are using a certain train of thought like Buddhism or Taoism or whatever. Context will make the communication difficult fosho

[deci belle]

Hi Jack~ there is no attachment; there is no one. Seeing is selfless; the very nature of seeing is selfless nonpsychological awareness. There is no one to turn it on and off. Seeing isn't the person. Seeing is the situation as is without any sort of self-referencing.

The quote you referenced is illustrative of how people who spontaneously recognize real knowledge, dismiss it out of hand due to there being nothing for the personality to cling to.

[Jack River]

Hard to communicate without understanding context or how we are using certain words. 

 

[deci belle]

mr Serotonin needs to complete the thought— you left part of your comment unstated. Please say your whole argument, ok, mr Serontonin?

Furthermore, this thread is not based on any philosophical argument. Philosophy is a billion eons away from the context of this thread. But do add the part of your statement that you left out to facilitate its resolution.

 

 

ed note: spell mr Serotonin's name correctly!

Edited October 20, 2018 by deci belle

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, deci belle said:

there is no attachment; there is no one

I understand this very much. Yet as you are aware people “know” that, still move in that pattern of psychological evolution. That was my point. Thanks for clarifying though. 

5 minutes ago, deci belle said:

Seeing is selfless; the very nature of seeing is selfless nonpsychological awareness.

I agree 1000% 

5 minutes ago, deci belle said:

There is no one to turn it on and off. Seeing isn't the person. Seeing is the situation as is without any sort of self-referencing.

I’m with you. The seeing is not the result of choosing/“the chooser” 

5 minutes ago, deci belle said:

The quote you referenced is illustrative of how people who spontaneously recognize real knowledge, dismiss it out of hand due to there being nothing for the personality to cling to.

I understand you now very much. I agree. Thank you very much for clearing it up for a simpleton like myself. I will go over your thread again a few times. It’s great practice to understanding different language styles of communication. Your awsome?

Edited October 20, 2018 by Jack River

[Jack River]

5 minutes ago, deci belle said:

Furthermore, this thread is not based on any philosophical argument. Philosophy is a billion eons away from the context of this thread. But do add the part of your statement that you left out to facilitate its resolution.

I can see that now. Just a context thing. Your threads are different. Different is healthy

Edited October 20, 2018 by Jack River

[deci belle]

You're welcome, Jack— I use these terms/style of writing as my decades of study/experience are keyed to certain ancient traditions stemming from Chan buddhist, Complete Reality taoist and Toltec Nahual teachings. That these influences are adaptable is due to your own affinity with their source.

 

 

ed note: change last line

Edited October 20, 2018 by deci belle

[Forestluv]

49 minutes ago, deci belle said:

mr Serotonin needs to complete the thought— you left part of your comment unstated. Please say your whole argument, ok, mr Serontonin?

I don’t have an argument. I’m asking for clarity on this point:

“This is what is referred to as knowing without the ability to act on knowledge. If one knows but is unable to act on that knowledge, it is the same as not knowing”

Does this assume personal agency? 

As well:

“The quote you referenced is illustrative of how people who spontaneously recognize real knowledge, dismiss it out of hand due to there being nothing for the personality to cling to”

This also seems to suggest personal agency. I.e. That there is a distinction between “real knowledge” and a “personality” that has agency to dismiss it out of hand.

[deci belle]

Quote

I don’t have an argument. I’m asking for clarity on this point:

“This is what is referred to as knowing without the ability to act on knowledge. If one knows but is unable to act on that knowledge, it is the same as not knowing”

Ok~

The statement is relative to people who spontaneously recognize real knowledge and dismiss it out of hand due to the fact that they are not able to deal with anything beyond an habitual reliance on self-referencing psychologically patterned habit energy. Conventional self-reifying patterns of conscious awareness would be relative to a concept of "personal agency" I suppose. But seeing reality is not relative to the person.

This means that spontaneous recognition of real knowledge without being able to act on that knowledge is akin to being ignorant of real knowledge in spite of seeing it~ that's all. The point is that real knowledge is accessible to all people all the time— not just for those who have already experienced evidences of efficacy demonstrating an awakening spiritual potential. It's just that ordinary people can't recognize it, and when they do, all they can do is go, "So what." That is, when they spontaneously "get it", they don't know how to apply it in everyday ordinary situations.

I think you "get it", non? haha!

To clarify: there is nothing "personal" nor is there anything relative to the person involved, (outside of inherent impersonal awareness) in terms of seeing— that is the whole point of enlightening activity. It's selfless, due to the nature of reality and hence, our enlightened nature. In taoist terms, it is none other than the "true human with no status" floating around in the center of the compass of the immaterial body of awareness which has no location. That means that real knowledge doesn't "come from somewhere" (else), nor does it have a pointed perspective relative to anything other than the situation itself. The focal point of real knowledge is a pointless 360˚ horizon keyed to the situation's potential of inevitability.

Enlightening activity is ultimately just "finding out what happened", from the perspective of the situation itself.  It's just your enlightened mind void of self-reifying psychological patterns right now, therefore recognizing real knowledge is completely natural, yet somehow foreign to the psychological apparatus of the conditioned personalities of those who are not sufficiently adapted to effective methods of authentic self-refinement.

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, deci belle said:

Ok~

The statement is relative to people who spontaneously recognize real knowledge and dismiss it out of hand due to the fact that they are not able to deal with anything beyond an habitual reliance on self-referencing psychologically patterned habit energy. Conventional self-reifying patterns of conscious awareness would be relative to a concept of "personal agency" I suppose. But seeing reality is not relative to the person.

This means that spontaneous recognition of real knowledge without being able to act on that knowledge is akin to being ignorant of real knowledge in spite of seeing it~ that's all. The point is that real knowledge is accessible to all people all the time— not just for those who have already experienced evidences of efficacy demonstrating an awakening spiritual potential. It's just that ordinary people can't recognize it, and when they do, all they can do is go, "So what." That is, when they spontaneously "get it", they don't know how to apply it in everyday ordinary situations.

I think you "get it", non? haha!

To clarify: there is nothing "personal" nor is there anything relative to the person involved, (outside of inherent impersonal awareness) in terms of seeing— that is the whole point of enlightening activity. It's selfless, due to the nature of reality and hence, our enlightened nature. In taoist terms, it is none other than the "true human with no status" floating around in the center of the compass of the immaterial body of awareness which has no location. That means that real knowledge doesn't "come from somewhere" (else), nor does it have a pointed perspective relative to anything other than the situation itself. The focal point of real knowledge is a pointless 360˚ horizon keyed to the situation's potential of inevitability.

Enlightening activity is ultimately just "finding out what happened", from the perspective of the situation itself.  It's just your enlightened mind void of self-reifying psychological patterns right now, therefore recognizing real knowledge is completely natural, yet somehow foreign to the psychological apparatus of the conditioned personalities of those who are not sufficiently adapted to effective methods of authentic self-refinement.

This makes a distinction between “real knowledge” and “a person”.

Try to go prior to these concepts.

[deci belle]

Quote

This makes a distinction between “real knowledge” and “a person”.

Try to go prior to these concepts.

[Forestluv]

11 minutes ago, deci belle said:

Indeed ?

[deci belle]

The concepts are of your own making, dear.

Try to go prior than you own conceptual distinctions.

The word is "the person" not "a person".

Indeed.

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, deci belle said:

The concepts are of your own making, dear.

Try to go prior than you own conceptual distinctions.

The word is "the person" not "a person".

Indeed.

Dang, I thought you got it. ? 

When you have the realization you will no longer need your words.

[deci belle]

At least you know how to argue❤︎

As for "getting it", not so much.

Quote

The Art of War states that "victory depends on the enemy" in that conditions conducive to apropriate action in response to developments cannot be manufactured beforehand. One must wait. One must know what is being awaited. One must know the ground of life and death and be situated advantageously unbeknownst to anyone. The word enemy signifies the nature of the situation itself in that one's impersonal adaption depends on its parameters exclusively.

Selflessness is being absorbed into the situation of other— even as other.  Selflessness is not being a Mother Teresa, and it's not a matter of getting into someone else's shoes, rather, it's being no one other than what is dictated by the situation according to the time. It's being selfless. It's not "the person", as oppose to "a person" and identifying as such.

Selflessness is appropriating the nature of awareness, of reality, as one's actual impersonal identity in order to adapt effectively, transcendentally, in the course of actual affairs without anyone knowing, or caring— including oneself. One's selflessness is totally natural— supremely natural.

This is resting in the highest good, beyond convention. No buddha can approach one here.

Edited October 21, 2018 by deci belle