Re: Some thoughts on Unraveling the heart knot

[Guest guest]

~~ I appreciate your clarification.

--- " Andy " wrote:

>

>

>

> If " no doer " and " perceiver "

> ----->And there is apparent doing and apparent perceiving.

> and observer is a story

> ----->All there is, is stories.

> then i guess there is no " true identity " .

> ----->Only inasmuch as there is " true weather. "

> Then i can't get out of " who i am " .

> ----->Is there a desire to?

~~Just to go into something out of character.. But without choice this

won't happen..So we have no freedom, either.

> So i couldn't [not be who i am]....maybe be someone else.

> is nothing that much to ask for?

> Are they just platforms?

> ----->They are all thoughts.

> Could be the other way around, maybe the

> " doer " is the platform for the " observer " .

> ----->Doing seems to happen; observing appears to occur. That is

> all. It's really quite simple. If you want to have headaches among

> the overtones and undertones, so be it. :-)

~~Lol. Actually i try to de-symbolize an image.

In that drawing there was a forest, the sun is at around 12 to 2, it

casts rays on a stone on the soil, except a small part of the

stone(around 1/4) is in the shadow as a tall tree is next to it. Rays

reflect from the stone towards the sun.

The tittle said, " Trace (or track) the light back to the father " .

Opinions?

thank you

[Guest guest]

>

> If " no doer " and " perceiver "

> ----->And there is apparent doing and apparent perceiving.

> and observer is a story

> ----->All there is, is stories.

> then i guess there is no " true identity " .

> ----->Only inasmuch as there is " true weather. "

> Then i can't get out of " who i am " .

> ----->Is there a desire to?

~~Just to go into something out of character.. But without choice this

won't happen..So we have no freedom, either.

*****Nel, let's be clear about this so we don't add to the

confusion. There are 2 " perspectives " from which to converse about

these subjects: the relative (everyday understanding) and the

Absolute (what some people here call 'the dream'). (Relative and

Absolute are terms from zen.)

In the relative understanding, there is no freedom because any

choice, decision, which appears, is a thought and all thought is old,

born of memory, arising out of an unimaginably complex consetellation

of genetics, past experiences, the hormonal state of the body, etc.

From this matrix, thought is born. " You " don't get to choose

thought; thought creates the sense of " you. "

So where is there freedom? Take any decision, any thought, and trace

it backward, to its antecedent. Take that antecendent thought and

trace it back to its antecedent. Then take that thought and follow

it back to its previous thought...and infinite hall of mirrors going

back to.......when?? See?

Every choice that appears is carried on the back of infinitely many

previous thoughts. To the beginning of the entire drama! Where is

the freedom therein?

To contast......in the Absolute perspective, " you " (not " Nel " ) are

everything, and I mean Every-thing. You are the world, the universe,

the entire catastrophe. And you are creating the entire hoopla out

of which everything manifests. In this understanding you are both

the creator and that-which-is-created. Whatever " you " experience,

see, think, smell, touch, taste, ... is " your " creation and,

simultaneously, it IS " you. " There is no distinction. (Except in

thought, which divides and separates that which is Whole.)

And, to draw an essential distinct, this " you " is not the identified

bodymind mechanism so-labeled " Nel, " the person sitting in front of

the pc screen reading the squiggles that appear as type.

This " you " is Everything. There is nothing that is not this " you. "

So, for this " you " there is freedom. Absolute freedom. But this

freedom does not exist on the relative plane since all that is

appearing there is a construction of the Absolute. " You, " as the

identified bodymind mechanism labeled " Nel, " has no independent

existence, and thus no power to direct anything.

It can be equated to a wavelet, floating on the surface of the

Ocean. The wavelet IS the Ocean, yes? But how much freedom, choice,

does the wavelet have? Even if it believes it has freedom, does it?

Is not the wavelet's temperature, its saline content, even the

direction of its motion and the size of its amplitude all directed by

the Ocean? Is not the wavelet, regardless of what it thinks it is,

simply the Ocean? And so it is with the identified self.

~~Lol. Actually i try to de-symbolize an image.

In that drawing there was a forest, the sun is at around 12 to 2, it

casts rays on a stone on the soil, except a small part of the

stone(around 1/4) is in the shadow as a tall tree is next to it. Rays

reflect from the stone towards the sun.

The tittle said, " Trace (or track) the light back to the father " .

Opinions?

*****That which is doing the tracing IS the drawing. The separation

which is imagined is just that: imagination. The observer IS the

observed.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > If " no doer " and " perceiver "

> > ----->And there is apparent doing and apparent perceiving.

> > and observer is a story

> > ----->All there is, is stories.

> > then i guess there is no " true identity " .

> > ----->Only inasmuch as there is " true weather. "

> > Then i can't get out of " who i am " .

> > ----->Is there a desire to?

>

> ~~Just to go into something out of character.. But without choice this

> won't happen..So we have no freedom, either.

>

>

> *****Nel, let's be clear about this so we don't add to the

> confusion. There are 2 " perspectives " from which to converse about

> these subjects: the relative (everyday understanding) and the

> Absolute (what some people here call 'the dream'). (Relative and

> Absolute are terms from zen.)

>

> In the relative understanding, there is no freedom because any

> choice, decision, which appears, is a thought and all thought is old,

> born of memory, arising out of an unimaginably complex consetellation

> of genetics, past experiences, the hormonal state of the body, etc.

> From this matrix, thought is born. " You " don't get to choose

> thought; thought creates the sense of " you. "

>

> So where is there freedom? Take any decision, any thought, and trace

> it backward, to its antecedent. Take that antecendent thought and

> trace it back to its antecedent. Then take that thought and follow

> it back to its previous thought...and infinite hall of mirrors going

> back to.......when?? See?

>

> Every choice that appears is carried on the back of infinitely many

> previous thoughts. To the beginning of the entire drama! Where is

> the freedom therein?

=Is this the everything is a story understanding? It seems to seperate

inside from outside.

> To contast......in the Absolute perspective, " you " (not " Nel " ) are

> everything, and I mean Every-thing. You are the world, the universe,

> the entire catastrophe. And you are creating the entire hoopla out

> of which everything manifests. In this understanding you are both

> the creator and that-which-is-created. Whatever " you " experience,

> see, think, smell, touch, taste, ... is " your " creation and,

> simultaneously, it IS " you. " There is no distinction. (Except in

> thought, which divides and separates that which is Whole.)

>

> And, to draw an essential distinct, this " you " is not the identified

> bodymind mechanism so-labeled " Nel, " the person sitting in front of

> the pc screen reading the squiggles that appear as type.

>

> This " you " is Everything. There is nothing that is not this " you. "

> So, for this " you " there is freedom. Absolute freedom. But this

> freedom does not exist on the relative plane since all that is

> appearing there is a construction of the Absolute. " You, " as the

> identified bodymind mechanism labeled " Nel, " has no independent

> existence, and thus no power to direct anything.

>

> It can be equated to a wavelet, floating on the surface of the

> Ocean. The wavelet IS the Ocean, yes?

> Is not the wavelet's temperature, its saline content, even the

> direction of its motion and the size of its amplitude all directed by

> the Ocean?

= So far there is no separation

>But how much freedom, choice,

> does the wavelet have?

> Even if it believes it has freedom, does it?

= What does the Ocean believe?

> Is not the wavelet, regardless of what it thinks it is,

> simply the Ocean?

=How did you get the thought in to the wave and out of the Ocean?

> And so it is with the identified self.

= The Ocean does not see itself but sees the wave. And the wave sees

itsef and does not see the the Ocean?

>

> ~~Lol. Actually i try to de-symbolize an image.

> In that drawing there was a forest, the sun is at around 12 to 2, it

> casts rays on a stone on the soil, except a small part of the

> stone(around 1/4) is in the shadow as a tall tree is next to it. Rays

> reflect from the stone towards the sun.

> The tittle said, " Trace (or track) the light back to the father " .

> Opinions?

>

>

> *****That which is doing the tracing IS the drawing. The separation

> which is imagined is just that: imagination. The observer IS the

> observed.

>

[Guest guest]

> > If " no doer " and " perceiver "

> > ----->And there is apparent doing and apparent perceiving.

> > and observer is a story

> > ----->All there is, is stories.

> > then i guess there is no " true identity " .

> > ----->Only inasmuch as there is " true weather. "

> > Then i can't get out of " who i am " .

> > ----->Is there a desire to?

>

> ~~Just to go into something out of character.. But without choice

this

> won't happen..So we have no freedom, either.

>

>

> *****Nel, let's be clear about this so we don't add to the

> confusion. There are 2 " perspectives " from which to converse about

> these subjects: the relative (everyday understanding) and the

> Absolute (what some people here call 'the dream'). (Relative and

> Absolute are terms from zen.)

>

> In the relative understanding, there is no freedom because any

> choice, decision, which appears, is a thought and all thought is

old,

> born of memory, arising out of an unimaginably complex

consetellation

> of genetics, past experiences, the hormonal state of the body, etc.

> From this matrix, thought is born. " You " don't get to choose

> thought; thought creates the sense of " you. "

>

> So where is there freedom? Take any decision, any thought, and

trace

> it backward, to its antecedent. Take that antecendent thought and

> trace it back to its antecedent. Then take that thought and follow

> it back to its previous thought...and infinite hall of mirrors

going

> back to.......when?? See?

>

> Every choice that appears is carried on the back of infinitely many

> previous thoughts. To the beginning of the entire drama! Where is

> the freedom therein?

=Is this the everything is a story understanding? It seems to

seperate

inside from outside.

#####Yes, it's a story. What isn't?

> To contast......in the Absolute perspective, " you " (not " Nel " ) are

> everything, and I mean Every-thing. You are the world, the

universe,

> the entire catastrophe. And you are creating the entire hoopla out

> of which everything manifests. In this understanding you are both

> the creator and that-which-is-created. Whatever " you " experience,

> see, think, smell, touch, taste, ... is " your " creation and,

> simultaneously, it IS " you. " There is no distinction. (Except in

> thought, which divides and separates that which is Whole.)

>

> And, to draw an essential distinct, this " you " is not the

identified

> bodymind mechanism so-labeled " Nel, " the person sitting in front of

> the pc screen reading the squiggles that appear as type.

>

> This " you " is Everything. There is nothing that is not this " you. "

> So, for this " you " there is freedom. Absolute freedom. But this

> freedom does not exist on the relative plane since all that is

> appearing there is a construction of the Absolute. " You, " as the

> identified bodymind mechanism labeled " Nel, " has no independent

> existence, and thus no power to direct anything.

>

> It can be equated to a wavelet, floating on the surface of the

> Ocean. The wavelet IS the Ocean, yes?

> Is not the wavelet's temperature, its saline content, even the

> direction of its motion and the size of its amplitude all directed

by

> the Ocean?

= So far there is no separation

>But how much freedom, choice,

> does the wavelet have?

> Even if it believes it has freedom, does it?

= What does the Ocean believe?

#####I have no idea. I don't even know if the Ocean believes

anything at all.

> Is not the wavelet, regardless of what it thinks it is,

> simply the Ocean?

=How did you get the thought in to the wave and out of the Ocean?

#####I don't understand what you are asking. Please rephrase if a

response is desired.

> And so it is with the identified self.

= The Ocean does not see itself but sees the wave.

#####I don't know what the Ocean sees. Or doesn't see.

= And the wave sees itsef and does not see the the Ocean?

#####In a sense, yes. In another sense, when viewed or understood

from a slightly different direction or perspective, it can be said

that the wave does see the Ocean. If it is understood that

Everything is the Ocean, that all there is to see IS Ocean, then

anything that the wave sees is the Ocean. What is there, other than

Ocean? Thus, if something is seen, it is the Ocean (in one of its

myriad forms).