What Is, Is

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Actually, yes, I suppose it would include the inconceivable, also (at least to me).

So now 'what is', is everything known, unknown and unknowable? It's also subjective, objective, Truth and illusion?

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Okay. Some of us, including me, have been hijacking enough of others' threads to compel me to start my own, for the purposes of it being hijacked.



In another thread, a few have been prodding me to admit that I have "beliefs". It has been, for some time, my endeavor to rid myself of my own "beliefs", which is to say, I see all belief systems as errant, in that they only serve the ego, in the sense that the ego uses it to say "'this' or 'that' is unquestionably 'true', and so I 'believe' it, and since the belief systems of others aren't the same as mine, they are unquestionably false."

To be clear, this is not to say that I no longer harbor any 'beliefs' whatsoever, since the ego can be quite subtle, but as I understand it, ridding oneself of beliefs is a process, and suffice it to say that I thankfully have enough humility to admit that I'm "in the process" of ridding myself of beliefs.

However, if in my self-inquiry, I ask myself "what do I believe, if anything," I currently must answer myself that I do believe, (I suppose one could say), that What Is, is, and that anything beyond that, that if I harbor any "belief" about What Is, is errant, as my ego makes the attempt to form a belief.

And so I put it to anyone and everyone to either challenge this "belief" (or idea, or concept, or whatever you want to call it), or accept it:

WHAT IS, IS.

Are you meaning 'what is' is everything in existence and acceptance is without judgement? Do you accept yourself as 'what is'?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

NOW I have that quote for you:

Yeah, by golly, that's it. I'd rep you, as promised, but it won't let me

I actually read this about 8 months ago, (though I never finished the book)and was talking about this very dialogue with my girlfriend, who asserted that this was what the whole book was really about--identity.

But thanks, Cris. This reminds me why I can't answer Arc's last question--I've lately latched onto the Ramana Maharshi thing, and have reached the conclusion that "Who Am I?" can't be answered. Only ... expressed (for lack of a better term).

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

If he perceives it, then it is.

HA!
Which actually brings us to the point; What is perceived is most likely illusion/delusion, (default mode for all humans) and accepting that it's true is to remain in delusion.

[Maguru]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

So now 'what is', is everything known, unknown and unknowable? It's also subjective, objective, Truth and illusion?

Ah, now I get it. heheheheh

[Beingist]

Okay. Floods of questions, all at once.

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Are you ganging up on him too?!!

Gang away, Arc.

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

If he perceives it, then it is.

More like, if it is, then it is.

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

Who is doing all of this conceiving?

Everyone can conceive of something, can't they?

Originally Posted by Arcanum

So now 'what is', is everything known, unknown and unknowable? It's also subjective, objective, Truth and illusion?

Sure. 'What is' can even be 'what isn't', I suppose. And both. And neither. LOL

(Boy, that's surely gonna raise some eyebrows).

Originally Posted by Maguru

Are you meaning 'what is' is everything in existence and acceptance is without judgement? Do you accept yourself as 'what is'?

Someone gets it, YAY!! Unqualified 'Yeses' to both.

Good note upon which to hit the hay. I'll catch up, later. Thanks, all!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by arcanum

ha!
Which actually brings us to the point; what is perceived is most likely illusion/delusion, (default mode for all humans) and accepting that it's true is to remain in delusion.

Ha!!!

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yeah, by golly, that's it. I'd rep you, as promised, but it won't let me

I actually read this about 8 months ago, (though I never finished the book)and was talking about this very dialogue with my girlfriend, who asserted that this was what the whole book was really about--identity.

But thanks, Cris. This reminds me why I can't answer Arc's last question--I've lately latched onto the Ramana Maharshi thing, and have reached the conclusion that "Who Am I?" can't be answered. Only ... expressed (for lack of a better term).

I wasn't asking you who you are, just what 'what is' refers to.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

HA!
Which actually brings us to the point; What is perceived is most likely illusion/delusion, (default mode for all humans) and accepting that it's true is to remain in delusion.

Yep. I'd say on some level there's a belief that delusion is inherent to life itself and that ones own distortion of what is will never be lifted until perhaps death so it's best to just go with it. Ironically, trying to accept what is, is precisely what obscures what is or undistorted truth in the first place.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Maguru

Ah, now I get it. heheheheh

Good, now explain it to me. Hehe.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Yeah, by golly, that's it. I'd rep you, as promised, but it won't let me

I actually read this about 8 months ago, (though I never finished the book)and was talking about this very dialogue with my girlfriend, who asserted that this was what the whole book was really about--identity.

But thanks, Cris. This reminds me why I can't answer Arc's last question--I've lately latched onto the Ramana Maharshi thing, and have reached the conclusion that "Who Am I?" can't be answered. Only ... expressed (for lack of a better term).

Your girlfriend is a smart lady. I think it's about identity, but also about rationality and the way our perceptions order our world. The biggest difference between Wonderland and Real Life (besides the surreal elements) is the way its inhabitants view things -- it's all topsy turvy, and they contradict poor Alice at every turn. Apropos to this thread, actually!

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Someone gets it, YAY!! Unqualified 'Yeses' to both.

Well, it's a nice goal to have.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Everyone can conceive of something, can't they?

So you are conceiving of an "everyone" (a multitude of "persons") and of a "something" for "everyone" to conceive of?

Originally Posted by Beingist

Sure. 'What is' can even be 'what isn't', I suppose. And both. And neither. LOL

What is can be what is not? Black can be white? Or maybe yellow?

By the way, the statement itself "what is, is" can be called a tautology. It can sound cool, but as arcanum keeps saying, it doesn't really say anything.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yep. I'd say on some level there's a belief that delusion is inherent to life itself and that ones own distortion of what is will never be lifted until perhaps death so it's best to just go with it. Ironically, trying to accept what is, is precisely what obscures what is or undistorted truth in the first place.

Zackly. (I'm hesitant to 'conspire' behind B's back, but it may be the only way to have a useful discussion about it.)

Acceptance is an important milestone, but we find that as long as illusions persist, acceptance isn't really possible, and we go on trying to be accepting while continually encountering the need to accept, since our focus keeps forming things in our path for us to accept. It's actually the exploration of acceptance, which is fine. B's perception that he pushed your button which resulted in a rant is an excellent example of creating an illusion to be accepted.

What seems to be necessary is to collapse the illusions that make it appear as though there are things happening that need to be accepted. This requires some self inquiry turned toward the mind and this is precisely what can't happen when the focus is on not engaging mind and accepting that what is experienced must be 'what is'.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Zackly. (I'm hesitant to 'conspire' behind B's back, but it may be the only way to have a useful discussion about it.)

Acceptance is an important milestone, but we find that as long as illusions persist, acceptance isn't really possible, and we go on trying to be accepting while continually encountering the need to accept, since our focus keeps forming things in our path for us to accept. It's actually the exploration of acceptance, which is fine. B's perception that he pushed your button which resulted in a rant is an excellent example of creating an illusion to be accepted.

What seems to be necessary is to collapse the illusions that make it appear as though there are things happening that need to be accepted. This requires some self inquiry turned toward the mind and this is precisely what can't happen when the focus is on not engaging mind and accepting that what is experienced must be 'what is'.

Yeah. Nothing is actually out of order and so if one is perceiving a problem, accepting what is would be to actually acknowledge that problem and not resist it or tell oneself there isn't really a problem and it's just a facet of 'what is'. Like all else, acceptance itself comes precisely when one is ready to accept and no sooner. I'd say that true acceptance could be said to be a direct result or side effect of clarity itself and happens spontaneously outside of ones own perceived control.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yeah. Nothing is actually out of order and so if one is perceiving a problem, accepting what is would be to actually acknowledge that problem and not resist it or tell oneself there isn't really a problem and it's just a facet of 'what is'. Like all else, acceptance itself comes precisely when one is ready to accept and no sooner. I'd say that true acceptance could be said to be a direct result or side effect of clarity itself and happens spontaneously outside of ones own perceived control.

That's it, which is why I began questioning B's stance of avoidance of conflict or the dreaded thinking, and acceptance of whatever arises. One can't actually do acceptance but one can question 'what is', or at least what appears to be.

Distancing oneself from thinking and conflict is peaceful compared to incessant thinking, but it's not some kind of a final answer to struggle, as we've seen.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

That's it, which is why I began questioning B's stance of avoidance of conflict or the dreaded thinking, and acceptance of whatever arises. One can't actually do acceptance but one can question 'what is', or at least what appears to be.

Distancing oneself from thinking and conflict is peaceful compared to incessant thinking, but it's not some kind of a final answer to struggle, as we've seen.

Heh, thinking evil! Starting at wall good!

[inri]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Like all else, acceptance itself comes precisely when one is ready to accept and no sooner. I'd say that true acceptance could be said to be a direct result or side effect of clarity itself and happens spontaneously outside of ones own perceived control.

I very much agree with Chris.

There is the process of observing 'what is' and judging it to be 'not good' and then concluding that it 'should' therefore be accepted so that we can be at peace AND then there is simply acceptance as a way of being.

One is a doing and the other is being....an absence.... this absence includes the judgment that precedes the 'doing' kind of acceptance.

The very fact that we observe 'what is' to conclude that it is something to be accepted means there was an initial judgment made. I can see how this 'doing' kind of acceptance often precedes the being kind....the 'ol walk before run sort of thing.

And yes, the BEING kind of acceptance where nothing is resisted (or judged) as it truly is ALL seen to be a perfect unfolding, is definitely a result of clarity.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I wasn't asking you who you are, just what 'what is' refers to.

Apologies. You asked, "Do YOU understand you?" I took that literally.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

So you are conceiving of an "everyone" (a multitude of "persons") and of a "something" for "everyone" to conceive of?

If they want. If they don't want to conceive of anything, that's fine, too.

What is can be what is not? Black can be white? Or maybe yellow?

I don't know. Can it, to you?

By the way, the statement itself "what is, is" can be called a tautology. It can sound cool, but as arcanum keeps saying, it doesn't really say anything.

Yes, I know, and I still agree with that.

[Beingist]

Okay, I have a question for you here, Arc--

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Acceptance is an important milestone, but we find that as long as illusions persist, acceptance isn't really possible

What are "illusions," Arc, but that which one thinks is, beyond what is?

How does one rid themselves of "illusions", without accepting what is (i.e., what is real)?

What is there to you other than illusion?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Yeah. Nothing is actually out of order and so if one is perceiving a problem, accepting what is would be to actually acknowledge that problem and not resist it or tell oneself there isn't really a problem and it's just a facet of 'what is'. Like all else, acceptance itself comes precisely when one is ready to accept and no sooner. I'd say that true acceptance could be said to be a direct result or side effect of clarity itself and happens spontaneously outside of ones own perceived control.

Indeed. Which is why I cannot prescribe "what is, is" to anyone, nor try to convince them of anything, unless they're ready to accept, ready to grasp it.

(Actually, an old friend once suggested that one shouldn't even mention it, until it's "asked for," in a way, or otherwise revealing that one is ready to hear it).

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

Heh, thinking evil! Starting at wall good!

Not to say that I can't be cryptic, but this is an example of yours and Arc's cryptology.

I haven't the foggiest idea what this even means. "Starting at wall good!" Is there missing punctuation somewhere? Where's the indefinite article? Is this caveman-speak? Are you saying this with a Russian accent (Russian uses no articles)?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

I very much agree with Chris.

There is the process of observing 'what is' and judging it to be 'not good' and then concluding that it 'should' therefore be accepted so that we can be at peace AND then there is simply acceptance as a way of being.

One is a doing and the other is being....an absence.... this absence includes the judgment that precedes the 'doing' kind of acceptance.

The very fact that we observe 'what is' to conclude that it is something to be accepted means there was an initial judgment made. I can see how this 'doing' kind of acceptance often precedes the being kind....the 'ol walk before run sort of thing.

And yes, the BEING kind of acceptance where nothing is resisted (or judged) as it truly is ALL seen to be a perfect unfolding, is definitely a result of clarity.

Thanks for this, inri. This actually clarifies things (and also addresses what Arcanum and CG have been discussing between them).

See, I can't relate to what they've been discussing, because I'm in the way of being mode (as would be implied by the username

[inri]

Originally Posted by Beingist

See, I can't relate to what they've been discussing, because I'm in the way of being mode (as would be implied by the username

Yes, I don't personally see anything terribly confusing bout what you're saying here.

What I get from 'What is, is', IS: There is full acceptance of all and anything that appears. This acceptance is more an absence of doing than a doing. This acceptance flows in the absence of resistance.

I don't see that you are making any statements about what is true or not, simply that there are no exclusions in terms of acceptance..you are not resisting any of it....In fact, If I'm getting it right, you actually are saying you have NO NEED to judge whether something is real or not real, true or not true, good or bad, beneficial or not beneficial...it ALL simply is and as such, it's seen to be perfect........no need to distance yourself from any of it or to make it stop appearing.

Am I close?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

Yes, I don't personally see anything terribly confusing bout what you're saying here.

What I get from 'What is, is', IS: There is full acceptance of all and anything that appears. This acceptance is more an absence of doing than a doing. This acceptance flows in the absence of resistance.

I don't see that you are making any statements about what is true or not, simply that there are no exclusions in terms of acceptance..you are not resisting any of it....In fact, If I'm getting it right, you actually are saying you have NO NEED to judge whether something is real or not real, true or not true, good or bad, beneficial or not beneficial...it ALL simply is and as such, it's seen to be perfect........no need to distance yourself from any of it or to make it stop appearing.

Am I close?

Precisely.

Someone else gets it. YAY!

[sonde]

Originally Posted by inri

What I get from 'What is, is', IS: There is full acceptance of all and anything that appears. This acceptance is more an absence of doing than a doing. This acceptance flows in the absence of resistance.

I don't see that you are making any statements about what is true or not, simply that there are no exclusions in terms of acceptance..you are not resisting any of it....In fact, If I'm getting it right, you actually are saying you have NO NEED to judge whether something is real or not real, true or not true, good or bad, beneficial or not beneficial...it ALL simply is and as such, it's seen to be perfect........no need to distance yourself from any of it or to make it stop appearing.

Thanks Inri. Is this a "result of clarity" (quote below) or clarity itself?

Originally Posted by inri

And yes, the BEING kind of acceptance where nothing is resisted (or judged) as it truly is ALL seen to be a perfect unfolding, is definitely a result of clarity.

[inri]

Originally Posted by sonde

Thanks Inri. Is this a "result of clarity" (quote below) or clarity itself?

Yup...that would work.

[Apopohis Reject]

Originally Posted by inri

Yes, I don't personally see anything terribly confusing bout what you're saying here.

What I get from 'What is, is', IS: There is full acceptance of all and anything that appears. This acceptance is more an absence of doing than a doing. This acceptance flows in the absence of resistance.

I like it muchly thus far....

Originally Posted by inri

I don't see that you are making any statements about what is true or not, simply that there are no exclusions in terms of acceptance..you are not resisting any of it....In fact, If I'm getting it right, you actually are saying you have NO NEED to judge whether something is real or not real, true or not true, good or bad, beneficial or not beneficial...it ALL simply is and as such, it's seen to be perfect........no need to distance yourself from any of it or to make it stop appearing.

Am I close?

Close enough for mine. But the question remains; once we unravel in favour of embracing What Is; our being-ness; what then? When we relax the resistance to begin to absorb, what or who then releases the unfolding awareness into our consciousness?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

Close enough for mine. But the question remains; once we unravel in favour of embracing What Is; our being-ness; what then? When we relax the resistance to begin to absorb, what or who then releases the unfolding awareness into our consciousness?

This is a good question, actually, and I've given thought to starting a thread along these very lines.

Some mention has been made by some folks around here, about what Angela calls "operative beliefs"--to inri, I think they're called "preferences". I'd like to explore those. I've got a hunch that something along those lines is what follows acceptance.

Otherwise, I sincerely don't know.