Song sings Aloha

[deci belle]

Aloha Deci Belle,

Quick question here: Do you use the Mind Palace or Memory Palace technique for storing information?

-------------------------------------------------------

Extended queries if you have time: 

Do you/have you switched from silent verbal/linguistic concept tags to inner visual and/or non-linguistic inner audio tags for all objects?

If you do use non-linguistic representational methods, and you don't want your mind getting subtly influenced by stuff like NLP, subliminal hypnotic suggestions, does your method address these issues in any way? 

Is your mind so unlikely to arrest on objects that co-manifest, that it is always primarily refreshing mind, with no indelible marks leaving perturbations that maintain subtle vibratory signatures that are then attached to internally generated meanings linked with associated concepts of good/bad? Have you mostly or all the way undone the mental manipulations of belief and objects representing more objects representing gain/loss, etc?

Mahalos,

Song

 

Even if I knew such a "Mind Palace" or a "Memory Palace", it couldn't store potential. As for method, simply observing mind by mind without exercising mind suffices. Just recognize the time of sufficiency and turn off the fire of insight then simply rest in its space as it distills gradually as subtle awareness.

When it comes to "primarily refreshing mind"~ it's as if you didn't already know… as if.

The reason you saved that one for last is because you can't bear to give up all that other precious crap.

It's very hard to give up. Real knowledge is based on not-knowing. When you don't know relative to the person, you see reality on the spot, gather its potential and transcend endless karmic cycles without leaving the scene, unbeknownst to anyone. Nobody else knows and neither do you.

As for "based on not-knowing" what?

Habit-energy/psychological momentum/pattern-consciousness: Complete Reality teaching simply sums it all up and calls it conscious knowledge. It's the human mentality. Self-refinement is the work of forgetting the crutch, forgetting the conditioning perpetuating morbid self-consciousness. That's liberation.

Liberation is forgetting feelings, forgetting thoughts, forgetting forgetting. That's not oblivion. You just forget to perpetuate the clinging mentality that revolves around itself. That's what I refer to as "morbid self-consciousness." Mind is itself "refreshing", when there isn't chronic psychological self-reification poisoning its own well.

Just forget it …if you can. It's not easy, but when you're finally done playing with playing with it, and you have the potential to recognize the right time, there is "dropping off" … refreshing mind is like plunging into an absence of absence. There is no remainder. Just this is repeatable, but the time must be seen to be actualized. Such seeing is nonpsychological. What was what? No one knows. Can you be just like this no one who jumps into the center of the compass and floats around witnessing a 360˚ horizon without habitually  thinking oneself into existence?

 

In the midst of delusion

Assaying is sameness aplenty.

Not a wit of gain or a thought of cost

At the right time you just turn up empty.

Lo and behold before anything's old

Violet frost obviates Karma's sentry.

 

poofs❤︎

 

 

ed note: add "poisoning its own well." at end of paragraph 7; put a "space" between habitually and thinking in last paragraph

Edited July 26, 2023 by deci belle

[Salvijus]

On 2023-07-26 at 5:14 AM, deci belle said:

What was what? No one knows.

My reaction to the post ?

[deci belle]

6 hours ago, Salvijus said:

My reaction to the post ?

Regarding what nobody knows, at least you have the honesty and forthrightness to admit what you know, Salvijus.

The point is that the perspective of "nobody" is real. It is possible to experience this perspective and exercise it openly and freely with benefit to yourself and others without anybody being the wiser.

There IS nothing to know, because there is no thing. The bubble of ego exists in a void. But until you actually get to the bottom of the great matter of life and death, your reaction has no power because you have yet to experience the knowledge of "no thing."

Whose fault is that?

[Salvijus]

16 minutes ago, deci belle said:

Whose fault is that?

Aaaah... Mr nobody's?

Somehow this reminds me of the days when a teacher would ask me something in the middle of the class and realization would dawn upon me that I didn't hear a single thing a teacher was speaking of ? and then I would try to answer something clever ?

[deci belle]

Well, I hope you don't ever change— unless of course you should decide to contribute in a responsible way to the benefit of yourself and others…

But then a thoughtful response on a topic within you ability to comprehend and reflect might cramp your cheeky schoolboy style.

But you're still young~ I hope❤︎

[Salvijus]

9 hours ago, deci belle said:

But you're still young~ I hope❤︎

?

No.., I'm just immature. ?

9 hours ago, deci belle said:

unless of course you should decide to contribute in a responsible way to the benefit of yourself and others…

Okey let me try to be serious now and contribute something of benefit to humanity.

I guess the only thing I can offer is my observation that what you write is almost incomprehensible more then half of the time and I have doubts whether or not it's even coherent and logically consistent. But maybe I just lack brains to understand your profound wisdom.

But I wonder. Were you trying to reach people with your wisdom and shed some light on the matter. Or were you trying to sound and appear as profound and complicated and smart as possible. Because if your intention was the later, you did a great job. But if your intention was the former... then..?

I assume if one was really interested in sharing wisdom and reaching out to people. That one would try to simplify what she says as much as possible and try to make herself as clear as possible so that more and more people could get it and benefit from it. And would not be so concerned with sounding smart and epic all the time. Tho there's nothing wrong with that also.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Salvijus

[deci belle]

Mr Song wrote:

Quote

I will try this way of yours. Precious selves and so-called knowledge, every step I take culls me from this playacting place. I feel embarrassed now to have gone there. I feel great sadness coming. Did you say something about an ocean of tears once? I don't mind such, but I was always afraid to give in, that I might fail in my duties to whom I don't know anymore. Know I am just a word machine, which they still find threatening or maybe I'm still that same fool. I hope that they will know that I am friendly under the hatred and pain. For what would I have to gain if I fell into the unbecomer? They see me better than I do methinks. There is a Bachalalian chorus whispering in my left ear, like cicadas on crack. They keep telling me to be quiet. Apparently I speak like I'm shouting. Mind boggling. 

No one is listening. The "no one" I refer to is your own mind right now. It's not the person, yet it isn't anyone else either.

No ocean of tears came from me.

The thought of "giving in" being pure self-consciousness without merit is a psychological chastity belt. Only you can take it off.

Just watch the words flow without following them; eventually, the flow stops intermittently, or not… even the temporary silence is a ruse.

Don't give in— that just feeds ego. Just listen…

The ancient method is the working of a subtly continuous observation of mind by mind, using the sickness as the cure.

The song remains the same. Listening to the stringless lute, what can come of it?

There's only one way to find out.

 

[Breakingthewall]

On 27/7/2023 at 3:07 PM, deci belle said:

There IS nothing to know, because there is no thing. The bubble of ego exists in a void.

Thats meaningless. If the bubble of ego exist in a void, the bubble of ego is unlimited, eternal and all the existence, because there is nothing to limit it. So there is not a void, just the bubble

Edited August 2, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[deci belle]

The bubble doesn't even exist. There is no thing, B.

Ego may be eternal for the sake of argument, but only in terms of the manner in which one might use the the word "eternal" relative to the context of the discussion. You are discussing something in terms of philosophic distinctions, B.

This is not philosophy. I save the term "eternal", for the realm of creation, karma, the micro and macrocosmic elements relative to incrementality, time and evolutionary process, so we are on the same page pertaining to an intrinsic logic limited to this discussion, but, as others are prone to do, you are not alone in limiting yourself to rationalizing the total reality in terms of an either/or ratio-syncretic paradigm. They are the same at the same time in terms of reality (not to mean the Absolute), but in terms of creation, their exclusivity is always dependent on the quality of refined awareness potential practice by the individual; ie, the continuum of individualized attention ranging from karmically-bound to karmic-free individuals. [This is a misnomer because one's very existence is karmic, but for those whose subtle consciousness of psychological momentum preventing them from following karmic patterning as well as perpetuating it in terms of themselves and/or others can be said to exist by a karma-free state of actualization.]

If one is limited by psychological relativity, one perpetuates karma based on selfish (personal) modalities. Those who see potential have already entered into the inconceivable, so their modality is transcendental; independent of relativity without harming the creative. This is the meaning of the statement, "Buddhas don't follow precepts, nor do they break precepts."

I can't say anything I want in terms of my distinctions based on experience, but you certainly can. I won't be able to entertain your discussion in a philosophical context though, because what I know isn't philosophy.

I have posted much in the way of threads over the years relative to the absolute fact of meaninglessness— both in terms of the conditional as well as the absolute. As for reality (suchness in buddhist terms), reality DOES NOT mean anything. I don't know if that would posit the same distinction as meaningless for your purposes, though.

Let me address the quote you have provided:

Quote

There IS nothing to know, because there is no thing. The bubble of ego exists in a void.

The first sentence distinguishes the absolute from the relative (the content of the second sentence).

A lazy scholar might mistake the first and second parts of sentence 1 as a statement based on duality, in terms of the absolute (nothing to know) and its [mistaken] relative aspect represented as [no] thing. This would make the absolute dependent on the created, and such is not the case; neither in terms of the construct of the sentence nor by the facts of reality borne by those (enlightening beings) who have seen their nature (enlightening being~ or nonbeing as is the case in fact).

So the first sentence as a whole is shorthand for true reality, not just the absolute. Though impersonal knowledge is immediate, there is nothing to know; there is no thing; there is no knower, thinker or liver of life, even in terms of the second sentence: "…ego exists in a void." The nonpsychological knowledge entering into inconceivable knowing is itself a nonoriginated selfless distinction resonating the boundless quality of awake. Beyond any sense of inside or outside, near or far, we can refer to this miracle as unified awareness. Awareness is selfless, nonoriginated, integral Mind alone. There is no way to imply its source. In terms of the nature of human existence and its innate inconceivable potential, just this is the limit of the limitless. There is always that which is beyond our extreme extension of spiritual (nonpsychological) potential.

That ego does exist by virtue of Mind alone is relative to creation; whereas no-thing "exists" relative to nonorigination. Nonorigination is not relative to creation. Dogen says, "Wood does not turn into ashes. Ashes do not come from wood." Obviously, as I have said, this is not a philosophical discussion.

Since you have yet to see your nature, there is no way for you to know, to see, or to somehow fathom that ego, as such, IS a bubble, and that it does, in fact, exist in a void.

So I guess I have to inform you that your statement and the assumption it is based on is erroneous. Even if I now seem to contradict the opening line I wrote in this post, where I wrote: "The bubble doesn't even exist." There is no thing, yet in terms of the void, the empty field's venue staging the bubble's day in the (dim) sun is absolutely as plain as day. In fact, I might add that the "dark" is more brilliant than the "light", in terms of the particular nature of its congealed aspect.

Taoism poetically describes such phenomena with the phrase "…in the dark vastness of the void, out of the dimness, a point of illumination, an auspicious object hovering in stillness…"

It is also referred to as "liquid pearl",  and "the subsuming swirl" [mine-heehee!!]. This is the impersonal aspect of the "all at once" depicted in the Tai Chi symbol, in terms of the eternal truth of the incremental. Those who see their nature can see that it's the totality of "the eternal bubble" you speak of, and yet it does, in fact, exist, in the void. But it cannot exist in terms of itself (yet another sublime parallel to ego). The void doesn't exist, yet in the context of universal mystical visionary experience, the bubble is only a sub-wonder to behold even in its practical aspect as "space-saver." The bubble is, in actuality, the objectification of potential.

Only those who see potential can see this in everyday ordinary situations. Real people don't see "things", they see potential. So that's what they deal with, and that's why their actions aren't relative to karma. Only the created is relative and subject to karmic perpetuation (bondage). Those who see nonorigination as potential deal with its essence directly without intermediary and do not accrue that which is relative, in terms of the primal organization. Only nonorigination transcends the primal organization of the creative, psychological processes and time, so it is a unique vessel of unified potential, ever poised to "pass through" the boundary of creative duality, in terms of subtle spiritual adaption based on realization of potential.

Those who do so are said to partake of the Supreme Vehicle of buddhas and all prior illuminates, as their entry into the inconceivable is the realization of suchness, neither ordinary nor holy.

What is truly wonderful is the knowledge exquisitely exposed as reality on the brink of going into action in perpetuity. Having never moved, such experience is the source of the statement, "Awareness has never moved."

In the best, highest meaning of the word, ego should be such a "space-saver" in terms of one's everyday ordinary functionality.

For enlightening beings who are fully adept at impersonally adapting enlightenment to conditions without relying on thier own power (by virtue of seeing potential), such is already the case. Someday, you may be able to look forward to the functionality of enlightening activity, in the midst of delusion, by virtue of the delusional, because such activity is based on, and perpetually refreshed by, the incipient upwelling of naturally selfless reality, neither absolute nor conditional.

 

 

ed note: typo 4th paragraph; add "(yet another sublime parallel to ego)", insert "objectification" and remove "personification" in paragraph 14; split paragraph 14/15

Edited August 3, 2023 by deci belle

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, deci belle said:

Since you have yet to see your nature, there is no way for you to know, to see, or to somehow fathom that ego, as such, IS a bubble, and that it does, in fact, exist in a void.

There is no such thing as an ego. there are limited states of consciousness. consciousness limits itself to create the appearance of a dual experience. the ego is the infinite mind, not a bubble in the void, since obviously there is no other mind, only the infinite mind, as the attribute "infinite" expresses. If you eliminate the limitations, which are apparent, mental, the "ego" and the infinite mind are equalized, they are the same. So, there is no ego floating in a vacuum. there is no vacuum. emptiness is a limited state of consciousness. limited because it excludes the full. infinity is everything, not nothingness. it's completely obvious. What is the mystery of "I am"? absence of limits, that is, infinity. Conceptually, the nature of reality is very simple. It is explained in two words:  no limit. On a practical level, it is difficult to remove those limits and realize your true infinite nature, since the limits imposed by the mind exist. it involves cheating the game, but once you learn how to do it, it's child's play. easy

[deci belle]

Ego doesn't exist, there is no such thing as ego, etc, blah, blah, blah.

I could say that the psychological apparatus does not exist, which is the bundle of functions that ego represents, but that would be an utterly fallacious statement.

Your point is still pure philosophical speculation with no applicable relativity to enlightening activity, B.

Enough.

[Breakingthewall]

4 hours ago, deci belle said:

Your point is still pure philosophical speculation with no applicable relativity to enlightening activity, B.

Its obvious that you didn't read my post. It's not philosophical, it's experiential. and it is also obvious: no limits. 

If you like to make the simple complicated, go ahead. There is not much to say, there is much to experience.

Edited August 3, 2023 by Breakingthewall