What Is, Is

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

It's quite unfortunate because I don't sense that Arcanum is upset with you or trying to make you look foolish in the least bit. I think he, as I are merely trying to understand what this all actually means to you and where the clarity really lies.

The clarity lies in the acceptance of what is.

[inri]

Originally Posted by Beingist

The clarity lies in the acceptance of what is.

Yes. As I see it, This acceptance you speak of is an absence of certain machinations of mind that are only engaged when there IS a lack of clarity....things like, judging and identifying with concepts which really means we're donning a dirty lens & carrying baggage.

This 'kind' of acceptance that is really more of an absence of something than it is an acquiring of something IS clarity (As Sonde pointed out earlier)....clarity of course being a letting go of false beliefs and concepts that limit our view.

As such, this acceptance goes hand in hand with clarity and therefore seeing that a rope is a rope and not a snake, would be inherent within it.

If this kind of acceptance IS our way of being, we could no more look at a rope and see a snake than we could judge an occurrence as being 'bad' and thus feel a NEED to change it.

Our attachment to 'what is' (or what is not) ceases, because we are now 'seeing' clearly. The acceptance and the clarity are intricately linked.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Beingist

The clarity lies in the acceptance of what is.

What is it to not be in acceptance? Is it just "too much conceptual thinking" that is being called "not being with what is"? And so? Why is that "not accepting"? And then how could this judgment of not being in acceptance, when you think something, aid in being accepting?


What about those beliefs you were talking about earlier? It seems like it would be nice to ditch all beliefs, to you. Like that is a goal that will produce "not having to believe".

Now look, this goal is actually a belief. It's a belief that believing things will keep you from being free. So to be free, realize that belief is bogus. And then it doesn't matter if you believe something or not. That would be freedom. Otherwise you'd be running your life tied to "oh no, I'm believing something again!"

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by inri

Yes. As I see it, This acceptance you speak of is an absence of certain machinations of mind that are only engaged when there IS a lack of clarity....things like, judging and identifying with concepts which really means we're donning a dirty lens & carrying baggage.

This 'kind' of acceptance that is really more of an absence of something than it is an acquiring of something IS clarity (As Sonde pointed out earlier)....clarity of course being a letting go of false beliefs and concepts that limit our view.

As such, this acceptance goes hand in hand with clarity and therefore seeing that a rope is a rope and not a snake, would be inherent within it.

If this kind of acceptance IS our way of being, we could no more look at a rope and see a snake than we could judge an occurrence as being 'bad' and thus feel a NEED to change it.

Our attachment to 'what is' (or what is not) ceases, because we are now 'seeing' clearly. The acceptance and the clarity are intricately linked.

I'm curious, and so I have to ask. Do you not see the confusion, contradictions and illusions going on in B in this discussion, (ropes appearing to be snakes) or do you just not care about that?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

What is it to not be in acceptance? Is it just "too much conceptual thinking" that is being called "not being with what is"? And so? Why is that "not accepting"? And then how could this judgment of not being in acceptance, when you think something, aid in being accepting?


What about those beliefs you were talking about earlier? It seems like it would be nice to ditch all beliefs, to you. Like that is a goal that will produce "not having to believe".

Now look, this goal is actually a belief. It's a belief that believing things will keep you from being free. So to be free, realize that belief is bogus. And then it doesn't matter if you believe something or not. That would be freedom. Otherwise you'd be running your life tied to "oh no, I'm believing something again!"

If it's realized that belief is bogus, how can believing happen?

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

If it's realized that belief is bogus, how can believing happen?

Kind of my point too. You can't believe your way out of wanting to not have beliefs. Trying to get ride of beliefs by using a belief will not get you out of the belief rut.

[inri]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I'm curious, and so I have to ask. Do you not see the confusion, contradictions and illusions going on in B in this discussion, (ropes appearing to be snakes) or do you just not care about that?

Well..I did offer up this;

As such, this acceptance goes hand in hand with clarity and therefore seeing that a rope is a rope and not a snake, would be inherent within it.

However, I suppose clarity might mean different things to different people.

If we can see the inherent nature of mind to spin yarns, perhaps this is enough? With this knowing in place, then every perception is seen to simply be 'mind doing its thing.'

From a place of BEING accepting of all that appears, there would be no NEED to even determine what the 'truth' of the situation actually was...as when we are abiding in acceptance, all attachments, even an attachment to knowing what is 'true...illusion...actual' all fall away.

Do you think its possible to abide in complete acceptance without an absolute seeing through of all machinations of mind...or do you think we cannot be in full acceptance so long as we are still capable of looking at a rope and seeing a snake?

I can't help thinking that perhaps it would be helpful if we could use a real life example instead of the 'looking at a rope and seeing a snake' analogy. Perhaps; looking at a forum post and determining that those who I'm dialoguing with are being condescending to me, would work...?

It seems to me that if there was a perception that said others were treating me poorly, there need not be any attachment inherent within that perception...that we could conclude (even wrongly) that others were acting or behaving a certain way and still fully be in acceptance this.....and perhaps along with this...also accept the fact that I may be wrong in making this assessment....?

To be honest, I really don't know myself. It does seem that clarity on a very deep level is necessary for abiding acceptance...but maybe there's a point too where we become attached to the whole idea of seeing 'what is' clearly..of knowing what is ultimately 'true'.....maybe so long as we remain physically focused, there will always be a certain 'lens' in place.....?

Okay....my head is really spinnin' now.

[VinceG]

The discussion itself reduces clarity. Its only purpose is to aid in realizing that. The more mind focuses on itself, the more of it it creates. There's a reason guys like Gandhi kept their communications short.

Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well. - Mahatma Gandhi

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by inri

[...]I suppose clarity might mean different things to different people.

If we can see the inherent nature of mind to spin yarns, perhaps this is enough? With this knowing in place, then every perception is seen to simply be 'mind doing its thing.'

From a place of BEING accepting of all that appears, there would be no NEED to even determine what the 'truth' of the situation actually was...as when we are abiding in acceptance, all attachments, even an attachment to knowing what is 'true...illusion...actual' all fall away.

Do you think its possible to abide in complete acceptance without an absolute seeing through of all machinations of mind...or do you think we cannot be in full acceptance so long as we are still capable of looking at a rope and seeing a snake?

I can't help thinking that perhaps it would be helpful if we could use a real life example instead of the 'looking at a rope and seeing a snake' analogy. Perhaps; looking at a forum post and determining that those who I'm dialoguing with are being condescending to me, would work...?

It seems to me that if there was a perception that said others were treating me poorly, there need not be any attachment inherent within that perception...that we could conclude (even wrongly) that others were acting or behaving a certain way and still fully be in acceptance this.....and perhaps along with this...also accept the fact that I may be wrong in making this assessment....?

To be honest, I really don't know myself. It does seem that clarity on a very deep level is necessary for abiding acceptance...but maybe there's a point too where we become attached to the whole idea of seeing 'what is' clearly..of knowing what is ultimately 'true'.....maybe so long as we remain physically focused, there will always be a certain 'lens' in place.....?

Okay....my head is really spinnin' now.

Tell me about heads spinning!

Seriously, it's starting to get me a bit concerned, as lengthy posts by you guys are becoming so much work to digest (though oddly enough, the "processing" becomes easier )

Anyway, thanks inri. What's bolded above nails it. to. the. wall. I think you're about to become my unofficial spokesperson for the purposes of this thread.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Seriously, it's starting to get me a bit concerned, as lengthy posts by you guys are becoming so much work to digest (though oddly enough, the "processing" becomes easier )

There's an "attuning" process that happens once you're awakened to non-dualism. You're learning not to use your mind to try to comprehend dense concepts, and instead just reading the important bits subconsciously. The subconscious then presents the useful bits to your mind seamlessly.

Eventually everything you see and read will present itself to you as a 'fingerprint' of that person. You won't even see the concepts anymore, and so you'll be able to cut right through the nonsense.

I can look at a big block of text, spot two or three words in it, and use that to figure out whether the whole thing's worth going through. It's vastly lowered the amount of time I spend in Google Reader.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Kind of my point too. You can't believe your way out of wanting to not have beliefs. Trying to get ride of beliefs by using a belief will not get you out of the belief rut.

Yes, it's a important point. Beliefs have to be seen through. The same is true of acceptance, which cannot be the acceptance of whatever illusions appear. The illusion is often the appearance of that which is unacceptable, and so it becomes a game of trying to accept one's own misperception of the unacceptable.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by VinceG

There's an "attuning" process that happens once you're awakened to non-dualism. You're learning not to use your mind to try to comprehend dense concepts, and instead just reading the important bits subconsciously. The subconscious then presents the useful bits to your mind seamlessly.

Eventually everything you see and read will present itself to you as a 'fingerprint' of that person. You won't even see the concepts anymore, and so you'll be able to cut right through the nonsense.

I can look at a big block of text, spot two or three words in it, and use that to figure out whether the whole thing's worth going through. It's vastly lowered the amount of time I spend in Google Reader.

Indeed. Thanks, Vince. That seems to be happening, especially as I notice the rants, but those ranting are insisting that they're not ranting, so I can't verify that.

Otherwise, I sure hope this "tunes in" to something clear. Lots of static with the text walls, man.

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Indeed. Thanks, Vince. That seems to be happening, especially as I notice the rants, but those ranting are insisting that they're not ranting, so I can't verify that.

Otherwise, I sure hope this "tunes in" to something clear. Lots of static with the text walls, man.

It takes awhile. You have to order your consciousness towards the expansive circular concepts, and spend time feeding all of your mind's machinations into them. This is the process that leads enlightened people to withdraw from the world, as the world keeps wanting you to keep feeding it, and non-dualism is too fleeting for it to survive worldly interactions for the newly initiated.

Luckily, these days it's easy to withdraw, you don't have to move into a monastery or anything. You have to choose to do it, though. After awhile, the response is automatic. But the door to enlightenment must be walked through, spontaneous ego death is never pleasant.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by inri

Well..I did offer up this;




However, I suppose clarity might mean different things to different people.

If we can see the inherent nature of mind to spin yarns, perhaps this is enough? With this knowing in place, then every perception is seen to simply be 'mind doing its thing.'

From a place of BEING accepting of all that appears, there would be no NEED to even determine what the 'truth' of the situation actually was...as when we are abiding in acceptance, all attachments, even an attachment to knowing what is 'true...illusion...actual' all fall away.

Do you think its possible to abide in complete acceptance without an absolute seeing through of all machinations of mind...or do you think we cannot be in full acceptance so long as we are still capable of looking at a rope and seeing a snake?

I can't help thinking that perhaps it would be helpful if we could use a real life example instead of the 'looking at a rope and seeing a snake' analogy. Perhaps; looking at a forum post and determining that those who I'm dialoguing with are being condescending to me, would work...?

It seems to me that if there was a perception that said others were treating me poorly, there need not be any attachment inherent within that perception...that we could conclude (even wrongly) that others were acting or behaving a certain way and still fully be in acceptance this.....and perhaps along with this...also accept the fact that I may be wrong in making this assessment....?

To be honest, I really don't know myself. It does seem that clarity on a very deep level is necessary for abiding acceptance...but maybe there's a point too where we become attached to the whole idea of seeing 'what is' clearly..of knowing what is ultimately 'true'.....maybe so long as we remain physically focused, there will always be a certain 'lens' in place.....?

Okay....my head is really spinnin' now.

It seems like a useful point of discussion. The premise is that one might be able to accept everything, in which case the distinction between illusion and 'reality' is not necessary. I say it's not possible to do that as long as something is seen to be a problem that is not actually so, which is not just the appearance of a mental story but the manifestation of belief in the truth of that story.

Certainly, there can be all sorts of wacky thoughts occurring and I don't think any guru has found a way to prevent that since thoughts are not formed from within the individuation or exclusively from the conditioning of that 'individual' mind. However, if these thoughts are seen as momentary occurrences, and it is simultaneously seen that these thoughts have no foundation, they simply fade and leave mo mess that needs to be accepted. However, if the thought is seen to be a true thought, it may be struggled with. The struggle already implies unacceptance, and cleaning up that mess in the face of that struggle is problematic, and the process is likely endless.

In your real life example of perceiving condescention in a post, there are various possibilities. I may be perceiving it where none was intended or felt by the poster, in which case I spotted a giraffe that isn't really there even though I believe it is. If condescention is a problem for me, then there will be struggle and I don't see where one can make a choice to accept what has already been determined to be unacceptable as expressed by the struggle, at least not without some more clarity.

If I erroneously perceive condescention, but I don't take it personally, there is an illusion, but nothing that requires a shift of acceptance. The illusion is already accepted even though it remains an illusion.

If I perceive condescention that actually was written with that intention, then there is no illusion to be seen through in that, and so clarity reveals that there actually is condescention. Again, if it's not struggled with, there is no need for acceptance. If it IS struggled with, then it is because of an over-identification with the individuation that is being judged, which triggers self judgment, and this illusion must be seen through, as talked about above, rather than accepted.

I guess the bottom line is that one cannot choose to accept in the face of that which is perceived as unacceptable, because it's being perceived as unacceptable. At the root of that perception is an illusion, which must be seen for what it is.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

I guess the bottom line is that one cannot choose to accept in the face of that which is perceived as unacceptable, because it's being perceived as unacceptable. At the root of that perception is an illusion, which must be seen for what it is.

'What is, is' means that nothing is unacceptable.

[ChristsLight]

Originally Posted by inri

Do you think its possible to abide in complete acceptance without an absolute seeing through of all machinations of mind...or do you think we cannot be in full acceptance so long as we are still capable of looking at a rope and seeing a snake?

I can't help thinking that perhaps it would be helpful if we could use a real life example instead of the 'looking at a rope and seeing a snake' analogy. Perhaps; looking at a forum post and determining that those who I'm dialoguing with are being condescending to me, would work...?

It seems to me that if there was a perception that said others were treating me poorly, there need not be any attachment inherent within that perception...that we could conclude (even wrongly) that others were acting or behaving a certain way and still fully be in acceptance this.....and perhaps along with this...also accept the fact that I may be wrong in making this assessment....?

It seems that to be in acceptance that others are treating me poorly would be to accept the mind's delusion. It's just another drama that the mind makes up to keep itself interested. Real acceptance would be to realize that the "treating poorly" is your own drama, and consciousness is merely projecting it back to you. When you can accept that it is only a projection, then it collapses and you are left with peace.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

It seems that to be in acceptance that others are treating me poorly would be to accept the mind's delusion. It's just another drama that the mind makes up to keep itself interested. Real acceptance would be to realize that the "treating poorly" is your own drama, and consciousness is merely projecting it back to you. When you can accept that it is only a projection, then it collapses and you are left with peace.

Someone else gets it! YAY!

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Beingist

'What is, is' means that nothing is unacceptable.

That's basically how I understood what you were saying: a way of describing what's there when you're just present, when you're just being, not making meanings or interpretations about whatever's there, but just being.

Of course at an unconscious level you continue to make meanings and interpretations; you are unconsciously registering what's going on and making meanings. If something suddenly flew at your head when you're being what is, is, you'd react. And you've got whatever other background reality meanings you make, as well.

But what I hear you saying with "what is, is" is your appreciation for the practice of noticing and surrendering when you're meaning making machinery is going full bore and simply allowing it to pass, and being Being again.

It makes sense to me.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

The discussion itself reduces clarity. Its only purpose is to aid in realizing that. The more mind focuses on itself, the more of it it creates. There's a reason guys like Gandhi kept their communications short.

Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. Always aim at purifying your thoughts and everything will be well. - Mahatma Gandhi

If you think that quote says to not be clear about what you think and believe, then maybe you can aim at purifying your thoughts?

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Angela

That's basically how I understood what you were saying: a way of describing what's there when you're just present, when you're just being, not making meanings or interpretations about whatever's there, but just being.

Someone else gets it! YAY!

(Of course, Ang, I figured you, of all people, would get it, but thanks, nonetheless for registering it )

Of course at an unconscious level you continue to make meanings and interpretations; you are unconsciously registering what's going on and making meanings. If something suddenly flew at your head when you're being what is, is, you'd react. And you've got whatever other background reality meanings you make, as well.

Indeed, I understand this, though the term "react" can be non-physical, also--as in an emotional reaction.

That said, though, what if there's no reaction? (Meaning more emotional reaction, really--physical reactions can be instinctive) Wouldn't that mean that the subconscious is cleaned out of previously held meanings and interpretations?

But what I hear you saying with "what is, is" is your appreciation for the practice of noticing and surrendering when you're meaning making machinery is going full bore and simply allowing it to pass, and being Being again.

"Meaning making machinery"

How odd it is, how much I now so appreciate your languaging, Ang, and how refreshing it is to see it again.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by VinceG

There's an "attuning" process that happens once you're awakened to non-dualism. You're learning not to use your mind to try to comprehend dense concepts, and instead just reading the important bits subconsciously. The subconscious then presents the useful bits to your mind seamlessly.

Eventually everything you see and read will present itself to you as a 'fingerprint' of that person. You won't even see the concepts anymore, and so you'll be able to cut right through the nonsense.

I can look at a big block of text, spot two or three words in it, and use that to figure out whether the whole thing's worth going through. It's vastly lowered the amount of time I spend in Google Reader.

Reading subconsciously (unconsciously) is what I refer to as giraffe spotting and what others may refer to as a lack of mindfullness. There are efficient ways to listen and attend, but letting your unconscious conditioning interpret for you is not one of them.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Indeed. Thanks, Vince. That seems to be happening, especially as I notice the rants, but those ranting are insisting that they're not ranting, so I can't verify that.

Otherwise, I sure hope this "tunes in" to something clear. Lots of static with the text walls, man.

Yes, I think that's happening too.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

'What is, is' means that nothing is unacceptable.

Is this the way you actually perceive though? Is nothing actually being perceived as a problem or unacceptable or are problems appearing and you're reminding yourself that in the ultimate sense they aren't really problems?

What I've been pointing to is the difference between collapsing illusory problems and hiding behind an 'ultimate perspective'. If with complete honesty you can say that problems are never being automatically perceived and struggle is not happening, that's fantastic. However if they are, even in your example of 'slipping up' and identifying with thought; clarity is a process of seeing through these problems and not merely trying to force acceptance upon them or get back to where you were before.

[Beingist]

Originally Posted by Arcanum

Reading subconsciously (unconsciously) is what I refer to as giraffe spotting and what others may refer to as a lack of mindfullness. There are efficient ways to listen and attend, but letting your unconscious conditioning interpret for you is not one of them.

Actually, Arc, I think what Vince is trying to elaborate on, is the difference between reading content (as in "dense concepts") versus context (as in seeing the "fingerprint" of a person), not necessarily the difference between conscious and subconscious (or "unconscious") mind.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

'What is, is' means that nothing is unacceptable.

Yes, I understand that's what you've been trying to believe. I'm suggesting it can't actually be done as long as illusions remain.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Beingist

It's more like, "Who (or What) I am". When not in "Being mode", I'm more like ... just me. In either case, yes, I'm still 'here'.

Is there a structure or an image of self while in 'Being mode' or does that only come to be when you identify with thoughts?

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by ChristsLight

It seems that to be in acceptance that others are treating me poorly would be to accept the mind's delusion. It's just another drama that the mind makes up to keep itself interested. Real acceptance would be to realize that the "treating poorly" is your own drama, and consciousness is merely projecting it back to you. When you can accept that it is only a projection, then it collapses and you are left with peace.

Somebody else gets it. Yay!

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Someone else gets it! YAY!

The irony is, you don't. Hehe. You're trying to accept your illusions instead of seeing through them.

[Arcanum]

Originally Posted by Angela

That's basically how I understood what you were saying: a way of describing what's there when you're just present, when you're just being, not making meanings or interpretations about whatever's there, but just being.

Of course at an unconscious level you continue to make meanings and interpretations; you are unconsciously registering what's going on and making meanings. If something suddenly flew at your head when you're being what is, is, you'd react. And you've got whatever other background reality meanings you make, as well.

But what I hear you saying with "what is, is" is your appreciation for the practice of noticing and surrendering when you're meaning making machinery is going full bore and simply allowing it to pass, and being Being again.

It makes sense to me.

It makes sense to me too, but that's are far as it goes. I don't see the holder of that concept doing or being any of that, except perhaps the attempt to surrender, which is a good focus, but by itself it's the continual cleaning up process that never ends without clarity.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Beingist

Someone else gets it! YAY!

(Of course, Ang, I figured you, of all people, would get it, but thanks, nonetheless for registering it )

I guess I figured you knew that I got it the way you meant it, but that was mind-reading and I'm sorry. I'm glad I said something.

That said, though, what if there's no reaction? (Meaning more emotional reaction, really--physical reactions can be instinctive) Wouldn't that mean that the subconscious is cleaned out of previously held meanings and interpretations?

I think that the fewer emotional reactions you have, the more the subconscious is cleaned out of those previously held meanings and interpretations, yes. When those reactions don't work well in life, I call those meanings and interpretations "gunk" and I think it works well to clean them out. When the reactions do work well, the beliefs, meanings and interpretations that support them are what I was referring to as those "operating beliefs."

"Meaning making machinery"

How odd it is, how much I now so appreciate your languaging, Ang, and how refreshing it is to see it again.

That one I stole from Landmark. But, hey, Kettle: "languaging"? Love, The Pot.