deci belle

Member
  • Content count

    129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About deci belle

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    hi❤︎
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,677 profile views
  1. iTommy clarified his description of fog as "becoming present" and summed up the OP with "…proceeding from here". As this development is an immature stage of just becoming present, proceeding from here is prematurely motivated. I hope iTommy continues to observe without calling attention to one's attention. Just doing this much (little) is resting in the highest good. tsuki wants to arrive at solution within the confines of fire (what is psychologically referential) relative to existentialism. There is no thing. One's enlightening function is not a solution not only because there is no reason. Though you say reality is perfect, you do not know the Causless. Though there is nothing to know, working with just not-knowing is beyond your ability at this time. Qanty still wants to coddle. QeenB wants to talk.
  2. You seem to have that wrapped up, Charlotte. I guess it's time to work on the part you left out, huh?
  3. Do the math, mr 7…
  4. oh dear!! an articulate one!! Right off the bat I want to get straight into the break. It's the critical juncture where potential is up for grabs, where one "takes over creation and steals potential", where one "grabs the cubic centimeter of chance", where one "doesn't miss a beat." That last popular euphemism perfectly illustrates the buddhist saying "saving energy is gaining energy", where one just passes through and gains everything and is gone (relative to that situation); that is, the situation is rendered a non-thing by virtue of its potential being swept up in one fell swoop and no one has a chance of re-couping anything. Who made off with it? The point is, that karmic situation was utterly sucked of its potential. Now you see the timing and the actuality of not going along with creation~ actually, it could be said of this instance that one has left creation holding an empty bag. And that is exactly how it is in real life. It's like a cat waiting at a mouse-hole. This is what refining the self and awaiting the time means. It's a matter of seeing. Bridging these critical junctures is not going along with creation because karma (creation) is based on the dual function of birth and death constituting all created cycles. The bandits always "lay low" for a time after a heist and the period of ten months described by taoist alchemy is no different. This is part of the meaning of the fourth hexagram Darkness. This is the time of sealing the potential in utter secrecy void of intellectualism. In terms of "gathering" potential, this is the time of preserving the fundamental. ok-- now i will see about tsukis' comments… This cannot be divorced from "passing through". It's all one; all-at-once. That's how the energy is reverted to its essence (potential). In the dynamic sense, the situation is rendered a non-thing by virtue of its potential being swept up in, as you say, the interplay of attention and inattention. I must somehow stress that it is not a matter of energy relative to the self in terms of spontaneous attention/inattention. One's mastery of suspending circumstantial momentum at the instant of recognizing potential goes unnoticed; so no one noticing (it's not an issue of anyone else knowing [or not]), is what constitutes not missing a beat. "No one noticing" is non-psychological awareness of seamless attention-inattention. The person getting hung-up on the juncture (or not) is not about the person; not relative to the person. "I am not the person" is no one noticing. This is not getting hung-up. Seeing is "passing through". This is "endless transformations, planting lotuses in fire, entering the tao in reality." There is a counterpart to this in terms of the sudden in that there is passing through, and there is "passing through passing through." In terms of reversal, vitality>energy>spirit>openness>emptying openness. In terms of buddhism, seeing essence (absolute) is "dropping off (the skin-bag)" one then drops off dropping off. In terms of alchemy, one uses lead to refine (balance) mercury, after which one gets rid of the lead. In terms of subtle observation, one uses concentration to arrive at insight; one then stops at sufficiency, otherwise one damages insight by concentration. One must go far enough without going too far— "The Cramps" song-title is How Far Can Too Far Go? You just know… in terms of subtle spiritual mutual response, one holds firmly and then lets go at the right instant. All these references point to the same thing: the timing is not up to people; when the time is right, one withdraws potential. When the potential is refined, it is released. It's a matter of recognizing the point of illumination— there is no social connotation relative to the situation because seeing strips energy of its karmic gravity. Reverting energy to its potential is freeing energy from the matrix of creation. The point (of spiritual alchemy) is simply practicing not going along with creation~ that's all it is. It's using situations to refine the self, as opposed to using situations to gratify the self (become karmically indebted). It's working with what is the same in that one uses seeing (selfless non-pychological awareness) to absorb unrefined potential (essence). The period of "ten months incubation in the empty vessel void of intellectualism" is the natural process whereby that potential is refined into its essence in the aftermath of its absorption. No one knows why or how~ it's just the way it is. Those who have the potential (to realize this) are said to partake of the Virtue of Receptivity. There are those who would say "so what", and my response is that there is no reason other than ordinary people go along with the light of creation's cycles of birth and death whereas enlightening beings turn the light around and point it at its source. This is the meaning of Reversal. This perspective is made possible first and foremost by "abandonment of the puzzlement" afforded by self-perpetuating self-reflective psychological patterns entertained by un-evolved ego-consciousness. "Abandoning the puzzlement" puts un-evolved ego-consciousness out of job number one. And that's a good thing. It saves monumental amounts of energy for self-refinement just by not-doing it. That is, not-doing "puzzlement" is itself self-refinement's "stealing of potential" compounded moment by moment without relying on situational momentum. By virtue of "abandoning puzzlement", situational potential begins to vie for one's attention. People, the self is not a separate thing. The personality is a permanent element of the matrix of creation; there are no survivors— and that's a good thing! It's no joke that "it's not nice to fool mother nature." But mother nature will get used to the fact that enlightening being is innate, as soon as one gets used to accepting its function. When you first start to steal potential, "mother nature" (karma) is really going to start giving you heat. That is why taoism stresses "hiding your light", and why bandits "lay low". It's what enables stealing. It's not a matter of criminal activity, its a matter of forgetting the self-reifying thinker and liver of life, and just seeing what is beyond the habitual perspective of the personality. "Stealing potential" is no idle saying. To re-cap-- the critical juncture is where one does not "keep playing the game"; one takes the money and runs— on purpose. It's cheating and karma doesn't dig it. Wizardry isn't an entitlement, it's audacity. It's not good or bad, right or wrong; it's one's human birthright: are ya feelin' lucky? People are inconceivable beings. This isn't religion, it's working directly with the source of religion. Stealing potential is cultivating one's non-psychological awareness to the point where one begins to see reality. Reality is neither self nor not-self: it is awareness of potential. Seeing potential is stealing it. Nothing is actually "done". Seeing reality is itself not going along with creation unbeknownst to anyone. The arising of the celestial is the time when potential is up for grabs. In terms of taoist spiritual alchemy, the time of the arising of the celestial is the peak of yang (in terms of the "creative" growth of the situation), precisely when yin "killing" energy begins to grow. One sees this time as "knowledge of the timing of the celestial arising" and one quickly withdraws from the evolutionary arena in an active sense. It is not that one really steals anything or runs away. When yin energy begins to grow it is the growth of the killing energy of the created energy cycle. It's natural. That's the only reason it is the time to "steal" the mature unrefined yang energy potential. Otherwise it goes to waste (if you're not a wizard, that is). Enlightening beings simply know. It's just the way it is. Like I said, ordinary people go along with the flow and adepts go in reverse. No big deal. So seeing itself eliminates the "break" at the precise moment where the energy shifts from yang to yin. It's the Celestial Mechanism. When you steal the juncture, karma can't go on; rather (to answer the question), it goes on and you don't, like a motorcycle without its rider… eventually, it will fall over for lack of momentum as you so well put it: Therefore i.e., the real. Taoism doesn't use objects, as "there is no thing"; taoism uses essence, which is reality. This is authentic meditation: alternations of yin and yang repeating over and over and over by using situations themselves just by sharing oneself openly and taking the forward step by accepting one's enlightening function, neither courting honor nor avoiding censure. Potential is itself viably absorbed by virtue of the situation itself. The situation itself is entirely none other than real potential to those who see reality, Suchness. There is an ancient taoist treatise that was recently (in the last few hundred years) re-transmitted and then "recently" translated under the title, The Secret of the Golden Flower." Do not waste a nano-second on the German/English version with commentary by C.G. Jung. The title translated by Thomas Cleary is the real deal: ISBN 0-06-250193-3. That the original European translation exists is a monumental boon— as there are literally thousands of such treatises in the taoist canon awaiting translation! I highly recommend the Cleary volume with commentary. In terms of alchemy, this relationship is termed "dual-cultivation". "When one reverts to reality, the whole world is transformed." There is no other practice. Balance is before change; harmony is after change. This is selfless adaption in accord with the time and situation. Seeing Change is transcending change; creation comes and goes whereas the middle way is the Supreme Vehicle of buddhas that has neither movement nor stillness: in terms of enlightenment, all (difference) is sameness hovering on the brink of Reality. Suffering is evidence of resistance to what is. We do that. It is not to be extolled~ heehee!! But it is a rush, isn't it? woohoo!! It's actually endearing too, when I see a counterpart absolutely bewildered in the course of meeting the challenges of a situation~ I get weak… I wanna fall in love… being a dominatrix is hard work!! Yes, I downplay my own suffering~ and others' suffering too~ meeooowwww!! ed note: add "This isn't religion, it's working directly with the source of religion."; "in terms of enlightenment, all (difference) is sameness hovering on the brink of Reality."
  5. Well, it's just that being in a fresher "stage" actively involving formal meditation might very well be allowing you insight into the experience that iTommy is describing. I say that because, having never practiced formal "just sitting", I don't have the experiential base that rote meditation provides in terms of its accelerated influence on one's transforming psychological patterns as they give sway to the power of authentically derived "stopping and seeing." My experience has been a much more gradual roundabout circumnavigation, if you will, over the course of decades. Sitting meditation was never part of the gradual process. The experiences I have gone through such as shamanic "dreaming states", kundalini, countless samadhi experiences, internal energy-shifts (organ-based) including seismic brain phenomena have invariably happened spontaneously inside and outside my body without me knowing what was going on. Whenever these things happen, I just have the frame of reference allowing that it's not happening to me~ it IS me. So I don't get freaked out, and the effect is internalized without psychological or emotional trauma. That's because it's not the person. I'm not the person. What this means is that me doesn't get "hung up" on these events, so there is no undue significance attributable to the totality of the being that is going to die. It's about the nature of perception; it's selflessness is one's true identity. Therefore, it's best not ot allow any intellectualism to taint the experience presently or in its aftermath which preserves the perpetual essential clarity of enlightening being. It's not the person. It's like you said: This is also a very keen insight. When one avoids the break in the course of events one is observing as iTommy describes, to keep going, just as you said, this is itself stealing potential in the sense of spiritual alchemy. It is where one does not go along with creation. It is very subtle. This is the nature of entry into the inconceivable. It is being aware of not-thinking in the midst of ordinary affairs. This is what I refer to as seeing. Seeing is itself the instance of "stealing potential". This is itself the arising of the celestial in the midst of ordinary affairs. It cannot be manufactured. It is the result of ongoing self-refinement. I repeat: it cannot be manufactured. Mind to mind transmission does not involve another mind. The fog is a preliminary experience before break-through. Formal meditation practice is very powerful, especially when carried out correctly under the proper frame of mind. People don't realize the power of the potential that is being released in terms of facilitating the initial stages of the opening of the golden flower of enlightening potential when beginning and sustaining authentic insight practice. Even if these things aren't violently apparent, no one knows. I never knew, and I still don't. It's all very hmmm. The resulting effects of clarifying the basis can be surprising or worse to those whose initial shallow entry into inconceivability is lacking in fundamental psychological foundations suited to handling the breaking down of the calcification of the patterns of the personal identity. Traditionally, in buddhist mind-training regimens, candidates went through years of rote academic study into the teachings and traditions adapted to levels of insight deemed appropriate before being allowed to partake of supervised meditation practice. There are countless examples of spiritual malpractice carried out by half-baked "spin-off" traditions— students should be very wary of trusting "teachers", who are very often little more than "baby-sitters", prescribers of mere techniques, or wretched souls disposed to psychic vampirism. Who ever comes across authentic, completely and perfectly illumined enlightening beings? Of the prior illuminates whom traditions uphold, countless others are those who were not disposed to formal teaching— neither their time nor predilection, so no one knows of the examples their lives exhibited in terms of their expression of inconceivable wonder from within virtuous receptivity. As for myself, I never had anyone to ask or tell. Perhaps I have the good fortune to be observing "wizardry" according to its intrinsic natural process without rushing or lagging. Who knows what's happening, but there is always a single-mindedness awaiting the recognition of the spontaneous arising of the celestial. ed note: fiddled a little with the middle…
  6. hi iTommy~ Perhaps you might be falling into the space occurring due to the conversation being nowhere to begin with and you are actually recognizing the real potential constituting the situational energy due to your meditation practice. It may be the conversation constitutes fog in terms of the psychological momentum you are seeing for what it really is? I like that you are also (deliberately?) shifting between the ratio-synchretic/psychological and the immediate non-discursive knowledge of your innate non-psychological capacity. Very good~ [as long as you shouldn't be in one OR the other]. Are these conversations valid? I would continue this exploration while perhaps using more subtle (impersonal) circumstances to practice this shifting between modes. Nice observation! ed note: add "…in terms of the psychological momentum you are seeing for what it really is" in first paragraph
  7. Elisabeth wrote: My, aren't we in touch with our presumptions, Elisabeth?!! If it ain't got no sparks, honey— that's just the way it is. Just because he didn't feel anything doesn't mean your projection is valid. It is possible and even advisable to realize that one's sexuality is circumstantial; one needn't go with it at all. One's own sexual polarity (or lack thereof) isn't necessarily a validation or negation of the potential of that spark, which is nonoriginated. The erotic is transcendent for a reason (or not). It's literally older than sin. That's right. The spark of one's nonpolarized erotic potential is inherent. In other words, sex is the dual nature of creation incarnate— yet its potential is already unified in terms of that spark. It's already you, and it is possible to know it. TheSomeBody asks if you can change it. But why bother? You can walk around being the source of it and most folks won't even suspect anything. Talk about being out of touch with one's feelings. It's a matter of chronically forgetting to project your patterns of personally self-reflected circumstantial conditions onto the world. It's not even spiritual per se, in the conventional sense. TheSomeBody mentioned Leo's observation that it is possible to change one's psychology; one can (and should) clue into one's non-psychological awareness~ call it potential. It's not a matter of lack as insinuated by Elisabeth, after all— it's what underlies the karmically bound personality. It would be very advantageous to get in touch with this potential. Taoism calls non-psychological awareness spiritual. Emotional awareness is part of the psychological apparatus (as is intellectualism) of the being that is going to die. Femme already has a part of this non-psychological aspect inclusively operative in terms of having a greater familiarity with non-discursive feeling, while males tend to be a bit exclusive with their circumstantial identities— not that femme are that much less invested, i.e: in the body beautiful. I highly recommend that people consider changing their sexuality~ in the absolute sense. ed note: typo 7th paragraph; add last 4 words
  8. yawn… You wanna be special do ya? Start by joining the human race.
  9. haha~ my value-judgement of the words are opposite of zoey's… but in neither case do I advocate the implications of the subtleties of doing. Practically the only time people conceive of these words is when they know they don't have something they need. Hope seems to express a slightly more selfish (helpless) connotation~ not that it matters, because faith can and will be abused by the usual suspects before they stoop to relying on sheer hope to feel like they are doing something to get whatever they consider themselves lacking. If I seem cynical— don't fall for it. It's just that if one really knows what one needs, what one really needs (in terms of factual lack), then one knows what one is waiting for and one waits for it as simple as that. What is the point of hope or faith in terms of Reality? True faith already knows that what is, isn't always necessarily apparent— that's the power of faith; it already knows. In this context, personalistic hope is an embarrassingly selfish act. If any action is required in terms of spiritual adaption to situational potential, then one needs to wait for the proper conditions conducive to meeting situational change~ it does not involve deliberation. Helping the Way can only be regarded as arbitrary, karmically bound and binding. Rectitude, in terms of correct action is not attributable to the psychological momentum of the times. The Tao te Ching states "the master carpenter does no cutting." I suppose the above is most akin to Preety's sense of the word, trust: But what is being trusted? Enlightening being's activity is attributable to nothing whatsoever, therefore trust must not be a reflection of the self that thinks right or wrong, good or bad. What is it then? Potential alone is to be trusted, which is the very epicenter of inconceivability in terms of the world and one's ever-clarifying enlightening efflorescence. Otherwise, evolution is not only dependent on conditions, they are one in the same. All created cycles are the same in this regard. One refines the self by virtue of simply awaiting the proper conditions with single-minded intent and acting according to the time. As is common, the usual suspects are emotionally attached to their hope or faith or whatever the politically correct term du jour is, if not even more attached to arbitrary outcomes (a certain election result comes to mind) and consequently (when caught in extremity), have already lost their innocence; the direct connection to an innate open intent consisting of non-resistance, which is one's selfless direct connection to will. So these people then have no recourse but to rely on the power of irrational rationalism (mere words or thoughts consisting of habit-energy), prayers, in the grossest sense, if you will— because of the "selfish" aspect— which only really amounts to a bit of short-sightedness, which in all truth can be remedied by a modicum of sheer objectivity. But people don't want to go there~ they'd muuuch rather cling to activist emotionalism, hide their virgin ideals in another round of bumper-sticker rhetorics and "talking-points" and, in a word, blindly recite their prayers. This is a polemic existence utterly void of the basis of non-psychological unity. In terms of craving enlightenment, as some are wont to do in the quest for spiritual materialism, it would seem obvious that such emotional or even intellectual attachment to an inconceivability is an anathema to the conscious basis of which enlightening potential is the pervasive element. —Ain't ever gonna happen in terms of the person. Yet who else has ever relied on such a thing as hope? Enlightening being has no use for hope or faith; it just responds. I'm guessing that Preety_India's OP is simply focused on the semantic connotation of these terms, but I thought it would be advantageous to address an aspect of the underlying issue(s) which commonly prompt one's attention to consider the power of the word in the first place. ed note: add first line; typo, 4th; add Preety_India's quote; add penultimate paragraph
  10. Those who live as warriors have only two things, will and patience.
  11. even my little pinky is kinky~ *winky-winky* hahahahahhaa!! ed note :sassed-up my response since nobody noticed anyway… heehee!!
  12. Um, enlightenment isn't a personally derived approximation suited to your own temperament, Arkandeus. I mean, why bother calling your approximation "enlightenment", for example: when you write: This is all pure speculation— not that this description isn't a fact relative to the Absolute, but yours is utterly derivative pretense— or else copied out of a book or online somewhere. It's called philosophical speculation— and to what end? I don't necessarily have a problem with that per se, and I don't mean to sound critical, but it sure would be helpful for folks to actually hear about this stuff from people who know. Dang. Enlightenment isn't about saying what it is or isn't (as if verbal clarification is the point of transcending creation). Enlightenment is about APPLYING its inconceivable potential in the midst one's karmically evolving milieu. That's the difference between "shooting the breeze" and personal power. And here are pluto and MarkuSweden commiserating over how depressing it is to "be" enlightened" without a guide. What kind of enlightenment is this that garners an "inner circle" mentality only able to express a "misery loves company" comaraderie. Even a guide can't help these pitiful illuminates. I've heard this kind of thing from seekers in real life and all I can say (to myself) is what, do I smell like Limburger? Hhahhahahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahahhahahahhahhhahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahhahaah!!!
  13. This is why it is said to first see essence on your own and then seek instruction. Here's the deal— there is further practice required after seeing your nature. It is not enough to sit around and psychologically project your understanding onto the world simply because there's nothing else to do. Though enlightening action is carried out in response to everyday ordinary situations, it is not reliant on one's own power. Entry into inconceivability is real; nobody knows the activity of enlightening response. It is secret action one does in public. The great taoist spiritual alchemic classic, Understanding Reality states right up front that one who stumbles across the jewel of one's inconceivable essence would be a fool not to set to work right away to refine this jewel. Sudden enlightenment is entry-level experience; it is simply to be understood as only having planted the seed of buddha-potential in the homeland of nothing whatsoever. There is a point to seeing your nature. Not to set to work to refine the potential of buddhahood is to be "like a stupid cat trapped in a cave under the black mountain." One must endeavor to "set up the alchemical workshop again" to enter advanced practice. I don't know if you people are real or not. If you are awake, then what is it? Why do you seem trapped? There is a reason enlightenment is called liberation. Please speak up! ed note: add everything after the first line
  14. hi Arkandeus~ I wouldn't go as far as to foist that understanding on the world. Perhaps it might be that everything is the same as the level of your awareness of unity, obviously, but really, that isn't saying much. I definitely see your point, and it is a good thing to articulate and distinguish these for ourselves and others. As for: I would have to suggest that you need to go much further into it than this indicates because ego is not other than your own mind right now; not different than an effectively (or not) enlightening expression of unity at any given time according to the requirements of the time. Ultimately, ego suffices as the most magically advanced utility at the service of one's functionally selfless enlightening spiritual potential. Mind is one. Ego functionality and spiritual adaptability are not different; not separate. To the degree one's self-refinement is developed, one's ego function and enlightening activity are unified, in that one's impersonally subtle adaption is a spiritual response to the karmic evolution of everyday ordinary situations without anyone's knowledge.