Life in Moshen

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
Moshen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am

Life in Moshen

Postby Moshen » Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:03 am

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
This forum is for navigational directions only.
The focus is to have One understand for themselves that the idea of self is just that, an abstract idea. Thus discern the distinction between continual perceiving and mental interpretations. Specifically the grouping of these intrepations into the Self and misattributing this as the perceiver.

What are you looking for at LU?
I'm fine with observering, awaring, being. I'm no longer looking to sort myself out but rather in how best to align and move.

I'd like to connect with and speak to others in a similar position. I read that you have Facebook groups.

I am also looking for perspectives in reordering and sorting the relative "truths" or beliefs of knowledge in order to do human society stuff.

Specific topics of interest to me right now is Causation and Intention.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
I'm happy to discuss any aspect of my understanding of self and perform any actions requested.

I expect that I will either be 'verified' so I can then connect up and discuss above ideas.
Or I have some sort of misunderstanding or blindspot. In which case I can look at it, 'unresolve' it and proceed to connect up and discuss. I'm fine with either option.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
No real formal religion or structured guidance.
Haphazard meditation practices.
A lot of reading and investigation across a broad variety of subjects including Epistemology, Philosophy (Eastern and Western). Some training in Martial Arts, Shiatsu Massage (and accompanying Chinese Medicine theory), Yoga. Though I tend to skip around within these subjects pursuing an overall understanding of self and life.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?: 11

User avatar
JonathanR
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby JonathanR » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:53 pm

Hello Moshen,

Welcome to Liberation Unleashed. My name is Jon.

I read your introduction with interest. I notice your interest in Causation and Intention and in ultimately joining LU Facecbook groups. Would you be happy to start by having a chat with me about Causation and Intention? Later we could move on to some final questions.

Please let me know what is your current understanding of Causation and Intention? How do they relate to the illusion of a separate self?

Warm regards,

Jon

User avatar
Moshen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby Moshen » Tue Mar 14, 2017 5:33 am

Hi Jon,

Thank you for conversing with me, I appreciate it.

I'd be delight to converse on those subjects. I am currently composing my reply and it should be ready for posting in a day or so when I have time to return to it.

User avatar
Moshen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby Moshen » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:56 am

Please let me know what is your current understanding of Causation and Intention? How do they relate to the illusion of a separate self?
In regards to Causation & Intention, my understanding of them is limited and fairly fluid (like all my understandings). As it is of interest to me at the moment there is a lot of different ideas and analogies that present in my reading and experiences. I hesitate to give a definitive answer as I’m still actively in the initial gathering/investigation phase so to speak. With that disclaimer said…

My favourite working analogy right now is one of a surfer. The surfer does not dictate the weather, nor the presence or nature of the waves. The surfer is still a part of the overall system though so their presence is a contributing factor to the nature/unfolding of that system. So in this sense the surfer is causative in that they alter/contribute to the unfolding effect regardless of how large or small that effect is. The same would also be true of an inanimate object such as a buoy in the ocean.

We’ll take a small leap here and assume that the surfer has a consciousness and mental faculty that the buoy does not (really who is to say though).

The surfer could be or act like a buoy, totally passive and yielding to every current, wave, wind, rain and sun ray that contacts them. Yet a surfer is not a buoy and to be totally passive to an outside environment would render one a corpse and not a surfer. A surfer then by it’s own presence must posses an innate motion or dynamism of it’s own. If a surfer was able to yield to all of the the inner and outer currents then they would effectively be comparable to a fish/shark/etc. Present, experiencing, reacting.

However the surfer is aware and they are aware that they are aware.

A surfer sees that they are in motion. They see that their motion produces consequent motions in the surrounding environment, some of which produce immediate changes in the motion of the surfer. I.e. there is a distinct feedback loop perceived.

They are aware that as their motion changes, their environment changes which in turn changes their motion. They are also aware that there are other agents producing motions which changes the environment which in turn changes the surfers motion. The surfer does not know for sure which motions produce which changes in other motions. But it seems that they want to have a full understanding of all motions and their consequent interactions.

The surfer has a mental faculty. This mental faculty can be used by the surfer to contemplate/understand motion which lies outside of their limited direct perceptions.

The mental faculty enables a surfer to take a segment of an experience of motion, abstract it (which is to say strip out some of the details) and compare/contrast this abstract with similar abstracts of experiences. This process gives the surfer a greater capacity for understanding and consequent motion prediction. Unfortunately the process is flawed. Or rather the surfers understanding and use of this process is flawed.

In a harmonic echo of a surfer being a limited/constrained viewpoint of consciousness, the surfer’s mental faculty works by attenuating awareness of the environment to a section/part. That section/part is then further stripped of detail to make it feasible for comparative analytical use. By the action of limiting attention/awareness the surfer is then able to sort their perceptions of the environment into groups according to similarities and differences. (big waves, little waves, long waves, short waves, etc). This grouping/sorting process resulting in mental labels / concepts.

These concepts can then in turn be compared, contrasted and organised amongst themselves and thus the surfer compiles their knowledge.
This in and of itself is not so much of an issue. In fact it is quite instructive for the surfer and enables them to refine their feedback loop process and allows for more accurate predictions and integrations. It is when the surfer confuses this abstraction/mental process with the actual environment itself that the problems arise.

This can occur on two fronts. The surfer can begin to act/react to the labels/concepts that they generate rather than the environment. In this instance the feedback loop has been reorientated to the mental interpretations/concepts being generated of the environmental motions, rather than the motions of the environment itself. In some ways the more primary issue is when the surfer “forgets” that this mental process is an act of limiting or attenuating awareness. Nothing has actually changed in the environment itself during this process. All of the motions continue to exist and move remaining available to attention, including the surfers own motion but in an effort to understand, the surfer limits their attention and they can forget that they have done this with consequent issues.

Although the above paragraph is somewhat simplified and overly condensed it lies at the heart of our limited conscious experience. I suspect that it is the mechanism that generates both understanding and delusion.

When the surfer employees this mechanism to abstract and evaluate his own motions in relation to the feedback loop a sense or concept of “self” is created. Sort of like a category tag used for filing and ordering relevant concepts and abstractions. In the same way that the surfer can reorient the feedback loop to operate off of incoming labels rather than environmental motions, the surfer can limit themselves to the awareness limitations contained and designated within the mental “self” category rather than the infinite points of perceptions presented by the environment.

One may imagine an “ideal” state to be the animal-esque state of harmonious internal and external forces perceived and experienced/expressed. Yet the mental ability of attenuating awareness presents both an opportunity for expansion of awareness or separation and diminishment of awareness.

Which begs the question of how do they integrate/co-exist.

You could mount an argument that mental process is redundant, that the physical sensations and environment are the only real actuality and given this one should disregard all thoughts and strive to exist solely in the “present”. But I tend to think this approach denies the reality and existence of the the mental thought process itself.

Which brings me to where I sit currently (and temporarily) on this issue. The surfer remaining cognizant of the speculative/unreal nature of the mental process. Yet recognising it as helpful (or at least amusing) and constantly evaluating the mental product with the environment (the environment serving as the master reference). Similar to an artist sketching with a constant back and forth of attention between the two and correcting/changing the drawing according to environmental cues, discoveries, changes, etc.

Bringing this winding analogy back around to Cause and Intention.

Cause, like any concept can be reduced to its most fundamental aspect of it being a concept and as such being untrue, an artificial construct. I don’t disagree with this, I think it is technically correct. However I also liken it to the argument of a child refusing to make their bed as it will just get unmade again which is also technically true. But let’s just embrace the fact that we are here, we’re playing the game and do it with some style and panache.

With this being said though, I find Cause to be a slippery thing to pin down. Establishing Cause is somewhat akin to trying to slice a wave out of the ocean. Wherever you draw the boundary line is arbitrary and necessarily inaccurate as true Cause by necessity is the whole of thing in reference to itself. But having mentally squared this nicely away how does one choose what flavour ice cream to eat?

Which is where I think the Intention comes into it. From what I can see when I examine things, regulating intention could be viewed as the only action able to be taken by an entity.

All of the environmental factors exist and move of their own accord. In our surfer analogy, the wind, the waves the sun the light all go with or without the consent of the surfer. The surfers own motions, their technical skill to speak also occurs “unconsciously” or without direct thought control, (best exemplified when one is “in the zone” just present and flowing in accord with the environment. (Though I suspect that this is more of a conditional Peak state than an alternative operating possibility). Which is to say that the surfer is not in a constant conscious process of micro-corrections and changes of their movements based on their thoughts.

Which sort of begs the question of what is the surfer doing? The only answer I can come up with is modulating their attention. Their attention scans over the waves, the movements, the crests, the current, the feel of the board, the surfers body sort of automatically adjusts accordingly and the ride goes on. The surfers attention goes to their mental concept process, they miss an environmental cue and get dumped. The surfer sees a pretty girl on the beach, they tend to navigate there by default. We could label this modulation of attention process Focus. The surfer is also generating emotion and evaluating (mentally labelling) through this process.

I would tentatively propose that Focus would form one corner of a triangle that makes up Intention. The other two corners being Emotion which provides the current and Thought which provides the shape/template.

The environment or experience tends to warp and conform in relation to the surfers Intention and it’s strength or nature.

Perhaps you could then breakdown this but we’d probably getting off topic for this purpose. Speaking of which having really just arrived here from this writing process I’ll kick these ideas around a bit and see how fits as there is a whole aspect of other environmental shaping forces interplaying with a persons “intention”. I also have to revisit the surfer analogy of the mental process above and it’s purpose and place in things but I’ll leave it unrevised as it’s reflective of how I arrived here.

In respect to how these concepts relate to the illusion of a separate self.

I would say that Cause is somewhat of a red herring. It only really exists in mental evaluation as it requires an artificial dissection to initiate it. Which makes it like the Self. An apparency brought about by the mental process but not existing outside of that process.

Intention on the other hand I would posit as a description of an ongoing process by the person (aka the constrained point of consciousness). Perhaps the only action (I don’t know). So if you move into the field of active present and current Causation you’re really moving into the process of Intention.

You could assign Intention to a Self but you could only really do this in a mental retrospective way at which point you’ve moved wholly into the mental sphere and thus it would be inaccurate. I would describe Intention as a pure verb. A Self is like a mental construct noun and outside of human communication, I don’t think you can have an actual static noun being a verb. (This may not be the best metaphor as we have backed right into pure potential/motionlessness/static transforming/generating pure motion.) You can’t really have a Self that Intends. You are Intending always, by default (it’s probably just variable in nature or degree).

Hopefully that answers your questions.

User avatar
JonathanR
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby JonathanR » Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:11 am

Hi Moshen

(Is Moshen OK or would you like me to use another name?)

Thank you very much for your breakdown of Causality and Intention. Very interesting to read. you make some wonderful observations. Yes, it definitely answers my question.
I would say that Cause is somewhat of a red herring. It only really exists in mental evaluation as it requires an artificial dissection to initiate it. Which makes it like the Self. An apparency brought about by the mental process but not existing outside of that process.
Yes. That is how I see it too.
You can’t really have a Self that Intends. You are Intending always, by default (it’s probably just variable in nature or degree).
Interesting. That's true. Self being a construct, as you said, is part of that working model for navigation. As an idea, how could it intend?.

Intention can be one of the subtler sicking points, where it can seem that there 'must be someone doing intending because otherwise how could intention be explained'? (For example, there can be the reasoning 'surely it's me that writes this essay? There is an intention to write and then it is being written and finally it is completed. It was my intention to do this all along and now it's done!).

I feel that Intention goes along with ideas of intelligence, discernment, discrimination, choice, control, decision,free will. These are all treasured characteristics of a self-respecting and educated idea of 'myself', aren't they?

When you say 'you are intending always' you clearly do not mean that a 'self intends'. In what way do you mean 'you are intending'?

Jon

User avatar
Moshen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby Moshen » Thu Mar 16, 2017 11:42 am

Is Moshen OK or would you like me to use another name?
Moshen is fine, though it could be amusing if you'd like to try out a random name each time...

In respect to Intention;

The main point I wish to express is that of an ongoing active motion /experience./unfolding.

Rather than "you are intending" I could have written "there is intending" or something similar. As to the nature of intending and whether or not that statement is accurate is probably a secondary point. The primary one being that life is actively unfolding in present tense. Unfortunately though any description /summation or communication of this unfolding has to use a form of past tense language. There is no way around it that I can see other than taking the entirety of existence and communicating that oneness (which would present a whole different commundrum of to whom it would be communicated to). So although you can actively communicate in the present any language invoked would be past tense in nature and thus technically inaccurate or misleading.

I was musing somewhat as to the nature and make up of the concept of Intention and how it relates to the active navigation of life. I'll give you a more considered response on that in the morning. I find it a fascinating line of enquiry.

All those topics you raised as sticking points I find extremely interesting and I'm happy to look and discuss any aspect of them.

Thank you for your time and consideration so far.

User avatar
JonathanR
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby JonathanR » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:10 am

Thank you Moshen,

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Jon

User avatar
Moshen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby Moshen » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:16 am

Hi Jon,

Just a courtesy note to let you know I should have a reply tomorrow.

Got an interesting line of thought going just wanting to do some further observations before writing it up.

User avatar
JonathanR
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby JonathanR » Sun Mar 19, 2017 9:16 pm

That's great Moshen. Thank you. I love what you wrote about the surfer and will be interested in what you have to say. But no pressure

Jon

User avatar
Moshen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby Moshen » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:43 am

I love what you wrote about the surfer and will be interested in what you have to say. But no pressure
Thank you for your kind words and understanding so far. Part 1 of my response below:
___________________________________________________________________________

My main subject of personal interest at the moment is the question of how one navigates life.

Although I do believe by the end of this article I’ll have answered your question regarding Intention, Control and the Separate Self I’ll do so having approached it within this frame of reference.

I’m much less interested in what is hypothetically absolutely true or accurate and rather more in what is practically quasi-accurate and immediately useful/illuminating.

If one fully reaches the conclusion that one does not exist as a separate Self, then by extension one can’t direct their actions to working on or towards oneself. It is an unresolvably redundant approach. So if you don’t have a “soul” or a “spirit” to work on or develop then what? What do you do on a day to day basis? How do you approach or align with the environment? What exactly is going on with the environment and the apparency of self?

When observing the world it is somewhat tempting and easy to reach a conclusion that one has no control and that everything just happens on it’s own.

Most people are familiar with sitting in nature and just observing the movements of life in front of you. This conclusion can be reinforced when you spend a minute to observe your body in it’s execution of various actions. Hands manipulate objects without the need for conscious control and execution of nerve/muscle triggers. Attention or an idea is all that is required for the body to move (regardless of the speculative source of said idea).

This can be even further reinforced if a person is familiar with what the kiddies these days are calling Flow States. They are truly wonderful states of existence and display of complete alignment and integration. If given the option I suspect that everyone would like to exist permanently in such a state. I also suspect that a good portion of “seekers” would expect enlightenment to be a permanent existence in this state. Perhaps this is possible, I do not know. My suspicion is that this is a state, and as such it is transitory in nature. Probably one can become skilled in entering and lengthening the duration of this state. Unfortunately I have yet to meet such a person that wakes up and flows from cornflakes to bathroom to transit commute and so on in a complete absorbed flow. My experience is that this type of state is most often entered into under particular environmental circumstances which are conducive to it. Sport & Art in their various forms perhaps being the pre-eminent and most conducive circumstance for this. Though truly any activity from Gardening to Warfare can accommodate it. However I can’t recollect any examples of people I’ve observed or heard about that has regularly entered this Flow state in areas that they don’t have previous experience in. Whilst a person may have natural affinity for something, they don’t tend to pick up a hammer & chisel for the first time and knock out a Statue of David in an afternoon. The only exception to this being one off instances of environmental circumstances of immediate clear and present danger which produce one off instances of Flow behaviour. The main point here being that familiarity with Flow behaviour can reinforce this idea of no control and everything just happening.

If one removes oneself from industrialised areas to a wilderness retreat or some other form of immersion in Nature, the impression of everything unfolding on it’s own seems very apparent. Life just flows in front of you. In the absence of human interaction and relationships the necessity for personal action or intention outside of harmonising with the environment is quite low.

Relaxing into the currents and movements of the universe with an appropriate mental acceptance level one can produce quite an emotionally smooth result, things come up for sure but they don’t really persist. There is little heat/friction/static generated as there is an absence of attachment to mental concepts in respect to the external environment.

By this stage of being most people are also familiar with the wisdom of non-intervention or the “light touch”. Strong or heavy actions whilst perhaps providing immediate results, tend to resonate and present all manner of unanticipated consequences down the track. Thus further re-inforcing the idea of not ability to control.

If a person who is familiar with all of the above, has come to the realisation of the illusory nature of the mind & self, and has oriented themselves to operating on external environmental cues in present time. Then they may find it easy and tempting to reach a conclusion that the mind is the problem and one simply needs to somehow abandon or disregard it in their existence. Become the cork in the ocean, see where the currents take you and C’est La vie. One has no ability to control and perhaps there then is some idea about their prior life being some long example of the futility of attempted control at which point the person now just relaxes in to this new existence of acceptance of full external control.

Whilst it is tempting, I can’t whole-heartedly embrace this conclusion or approach.

I have to base my conclusion on what I observe and outside of a theoretical hermit existence in Nature that I have not lived, I can’t see that this approach fully covers the world that I see.

I think that any philosophy needs to account for all that one observes and in this instance I observe that:

1) A person has a mental facility that shouldn’t just be chalked up as some mistake or aberration to be ignored or resolved.
2) Goal setting works (to a degree)

In respect to point 1, I think that it is fairly self explanatory. If everthing is One, then every part of that One would serve a function. It is doubtful that the function would just be “obstacle to overcome or distortion to ignore”.

Point 2 bears some consideration as it provides the main counter point to the “Lets just float along and let Gods work unfold” approach. The modern Industrialised world is also demonstrably full of Goal setting and manifestation. Real physical things such as cars, buildings, electronics are in existence as a result of people who operate on the basis of bringing an idea into reality. The philosophy or understanding of the mechanics behind the approach as understood by these people may or may not be true or accurate but the results are there as physical, tangible items. But there are limits or qualifiers to this. Not everything that people want or desire comes about and quite often when it does it is not entirely in the form anticipate or imagined.

My Buddhist philosophy is fairly rudimentary but I believe there is a line in there somewhere about “attachment to desires being a root of suffering”. This seems true. If you try to impose an idea on to the world and the world doesn’t immediately manifest it, then annoyance, frustration and the like start to generate. One could spend some time examining this as a problem in persistence (persistence of ideas vs emotions vs the physical) . For our purpose we will just acknowledge that this goal setting generates disturbance and disturbance is usually viewed as the opposite of complete alignment and integration (ala a flow state).

To my line of thinking you can’t ignore this as a navigational approach to life. Even if it is perhaps based upon philosophical misunderstandings it has been used as the foundation of the Western World.

In any variation of approach I believe the phrase "Where Attention goes Life Flows" holds up fairly well as a fundamental.

Consequently any alternative philosophical or navigational approach should account for the entirety of the above. I think I have a rudimentary of sketch of one that does whilst accommodating the apparency of self, intention and control.

*I’ll write that up and post it as a second reply as this is already getting rather long.

User avatar
Moshen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby Moshen » Wed Mar 22, 2017 4:49 am

Part 2

Although not explicitly stated in the above section the issue of intention, will and control is front and center with any form of life navigation approach. Afterall if one is to accept the fatalistic side of things and determine that there is only passive experience, there is no navigation necessary end of problem.

One could be quite simplistic and decide that as there is no separate self then there is no one to there to navigate. Fair enough as a written piece of logic but whilst there is no actual separate self, there is certainly a apparency of one as well as an apparency of self-determination and it is prudent to take a very hard look at these apparancies to see if there is something to it.

Without going into the logical steps themselves that lead us there, let’s just state the following as givens for this article:

1. A person is essentially and fundamentally Awareness of Awareness (or Awaring of Awaring if one was wishing to emphasise the active nature of it).
2. Everything is One.
3. Any division or separation is by it’s nature somewhat arbitrary and merely an apparency.
4. The Universe as perceived is an apparency of separation that is necessary in order to sustain the whole show.
5. If a person was able to perceive the whole of the oneness of everything in it’s entirety, it would essentially collapse as the apparency of separation dissolves. (Thus a person is by necessity a limited perspective of the Oneness of Consciousness. A sort of distorted lens which enables this separation projection.)
6. Consciousness itself is pure Potential Cause or Creativity in its Infinitness.

There is also a most fundamental point of view that needs to be taken as a given for this article. Namely that the Universe exists inside of Consciousness. As opposed to the Universe being something that externally surrounds and is viewed from within by Consciousness.

If we run with this understanding of the Universe it then follows that any point of the Universe is fundamentally a point of pure potential cause or creativity. By point we are talking every single theoretical point in space regardless of what form (if any) it expresses. This inclusive of people to animals to cars to rocks to atoms to everything. The key aspect here being that it is Potential Cause not active cause.

The trick here is to keep in mind that none of these points are in anyway actually separated in anything other than by the apparency generated when motion solidifies into physical form.

Will use this segue to include the assumption that Universe being constructed of motions in various forms, at various scales and combinations.

So if we take all of the above as given for this example, we propose that everything observable in the Universe is constantly in motion and constantly being affected by the motion of everything else and in particular different scales of emissions. Which is to say that within certain environments there are points that exert dominating influence over the immediate environment. On a personal level this would include such things as the Sun, wind, landscape, etc. A key point of these types of influences is that they are fairly consistent in nature, they may vary in intensity but the wind is always windy (i.e. it is not fire). A person for instance is not anywhere near as consistent in their pattern, frequency or intensity of emission.

In this I am proposing that a person is, as an aspect of Consciouness, essentially a highly variable source of emission. In the same manner that you can not isolate any particular part of the ocean water as a wave (or the source of the wave), there is not any particular piece of physical matter that can pointed to as the person. Rather the person is the collective effect being exerted upon the environment.

A persons body being the physical environment that is most prominently and dominantly affected by the individual is then most easily (mis)identified as the individual themselves.

Now circling back around to the earlier point of infinite potential cause or emission from any point of the environment. A human body is primarily under the influence of the individual but it is not only under their influence. It is under the influence of everything else, just in varying degrees. Sun, temperature, noise, animals, other people, etc, etc. With the same being true of everything else in the universe.

Which brings us to Chaos Theory and it’s relevant studies of the behaviour of dynamically changing systems. Without going into anything we’ll just extract from it that dynamic systems tend to resolve from order to chaos to order. Some of which is predictable in a short time frame but not so much on a long time frame as small variations can produce great changes.

I know it is a bit of a haphazard explanation but the above is an attempt to provide some of the ground basis behind my tentative conclusions of:

1) An individual is essentially a point of emission. As an aspect of Consciousness that can’t be anything else but emissive.
2) The person has the ability to regulate the nature of their emission to some degree (beyond the scope of this article to go into this).
3) As an individual is only one of an infinite number of potential points of emission they are only able to influence the environment, not completely, fully control it in totality.
4) The level of influence or “control” able to be achieved by the individual will vary relative to other dominating influences within that environment.
5) There is no Self there as the there is no constant or physical aspect that can be pointed to. All there is a constantly changing point of emission evidenced by it’s influence upon the environment. Additionally there is no aspect of the environment that is only influenced by the person so it is impossible to ever get a clear precise “read” or embodiment of their influence.

As to how this addresses Navigation:
I think it provides a basis for the validity how a low emission style of life works. Particularly if you aren’t attached to a destination or outcome. It also doesn’t rule out a highly emissive style of life. It just shows that such an approach will generate turbulence and the long term outcomes are hard to predict in detail.

As has been shown a softly spoken idea can still ripple across the ages.

It allows for the futility of it all as over a long enough time frame nothing remains in evidence.

Perhaps it specifies to me the benefit in both developing an analytical understanding of emissive forces and how they interact and the development of perceptions of and sensitivity to universal forces.

It has taken a while and I’ve had to delete and edit a fair bit as I went into unnecessary detours and explanations but hopefully I’ve been able to lay out the gist of things sufficiently for you. I've been much less particular with language in this part as the whole thing was taking quite a while to get down in a comprehensible form as it was.

Let me know if you require further explanation or clarification on any points.

User avatar
JonathanR
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby JonathanR » Wed Mar 22, 2017 11:44 pm

Hi Moshen,

Thank you for both parts of your reply about Intention. Its great. really worth reading.

Forgive me if I do not meet your statements with such full replies. The job of an LU guide is quite specific and there are some essentially simple things that we point to and that we look out for.

I'm very happy with everything you have written. I do not know whether I agree or disagree with your conclusions about intention. They are interesting. But I wonder if you have read a lot of the other guidings at LU or books such as Liberation Unleashed by Ilona? Intention is one of the things that we can investigate through some simple experiments. You may already know that quite a few people, having looked to see if there is Intention, cannot find any evidence to support the idea? And that is WITH the acceptance that an illusion of 'self' does appear and appears to intend to do things.

Would you like to take a look at Intention in a very simple and direct sort of way that is wholly different from thinking about it? At least, what I have in mind is only slightly to do with thought and mostly to do with rather practical, even humdrum exercises.

warm regards,

Jon

User avatar
Moshen
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby Moshen » Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:14 am

Forgive me if I do not meet your statements with such full replies. The job of an LU guide is quite specific and there are some essentially simple things that we point to and that we look out for.
I understand your position and role in this and I'm not expecting anything else from you.
But I wonder if you have read a lot of the other guidings at LU or books such as Liberation Unleashed by Ilona?
I have read a good portion of of Ilonas books, and some of the guidings here on the website (though not a lot).
You may already know that quite a few people, having looked to see if there is Intention, cannot find any evidence to support the idea? And that is WITH the acceptance that an illusion of 'self' does appear and appears to intend to do things.
I am aware of this. I don't disagree with that finding either. If restricted to a very direct localised observation of the senses you can't make a case for intention. Everything does flow (or is perceived as flowing) in an autonomous manner.
But it leaves me with the question of "Now what?" "What do you do with this?". A more specific question may be "Is there a way to integrate from an Analytical basis?" or in a more informal way "Well this whole oneness unfolding thing is all well and good while in the zone of purely present but I have to manage staff, money and heavy machinery which necessitates learning, planning, etc. How does one reconcile/navigate things of that nature?" If the analytical mind is correctly identified as a source of delusion or misinterpretation how does one exist in a Western society without utilising it? Has anyone ever lived successfully having removed/disengaged/dissolved it?

I also understand that these are problems existing only within the analytical mind itself. So, where does that leave one?

How do you go about your daily affairs?

The previous replies of mine were an attempt to get some of the thoughts out of my head in regards to this topic for my own clarity and to provide you with a basis for any recommendations.
Would you like to take a look at Intention in a very simple and direct sort of way that is wholly different from thinking about it? At least, what I have in mind is only slightly to do with thought and mostly to do with rather practical, even humdrum exercises.
Yes, I'm willing to do any of these exercises.

User avatar
JonathanR
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby JonathanR » Thu Mar 23, 2017 3:55 pm

Hi Moshen.

Just to let you know that I will be writing to you later today,

Jon

User avatar
JonathanR
Posts: 3978
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:14 pm

Re: Life in Moshen

Postby JonathanR » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:58 pm

Hi Moshen
I am aware of this. I don't disagree with that finding either. If restricted to a very direct localised observation of the senses you can't make a case for intention. Everything does flow (or is perceived as flowing) in an autonomous manner.
But it leaves me with the question of "Now what?" "What do you do with this?".
A more specific question may be "Is there a way to integrate from an Analytical basis?" or in a more informal way "Well this whole oneness unfolding thing is all well and good while in the zone of purely present but I have to manage staff, money and heavy machinery which necessitates learning, planning, etc. How does one recoencile/navigate things of that nature?"
Absolutely. The only real contradiction is in the thought 'I' , for example 'I must do things'. As you have discovered no self can be found. And no actual 'doer'_can be found either. And yet jobs get done. It appears that a doer is required or at least DOING. The case of handling heavy machinery is a great example to bring up and it is possible to look right into this.

If the analytical mind is correctly identified as a source of delusion or misinterpretation how does one exist in a Western society without utilising it?
Well, perhaps the analytical mind is implicated in delusion but it is also part of what you described as 'flow' isn't it? How is the appearing of thoughts different from the appearing of everything else?

I mean, can thought be prevented from appearing? Including the thought 'I'? Can thoughts be created or made to appear? If the answer to these questions is 'no' then what about Intention? Perhaps thoughts about intention appear and then it seems that there is intention, or that intention is part of the way things must work?

Has anyone ever lived successfully having removed/disengaged/dissolved it?
I don't know.There are rumours about that sort of thing, aren't there? And perhaps an expectation that this should happen? But is it right to assume that thoughts must, or even can be, eradicated?

Could it be that the real issue is not getting rid of thoughts altogether but recognising that the content of thoughts, what thoughts are ABOUT is never what is actually happening in any moment?

. It seems illogical to assume that analysis or intention are not involved in working complex machinery. But actually, don't most tasks or actions simply flow? Have you tried finding 'decisions' in direct experience? Have you tried looking for the precise point at which a 'choice' between alternatives is made?

Perhaps even the subtle sense of direction or intention is an illusion? That there can be the idea of these but only as a thought about 'intention'?

Pick on a few examples, such as driving to work or other sequences, such as going to make a hot drink. Look for choices and decisions. Are choices and decisions being made (intentionally) all the way along or would you say that most or all of the 'actions' simply happen witbout intentional decision or choices?
.
I also understand that these are problems existing only within the analytical mind itself. So, where does that leave one?
A very good question. Perhaps it leaves the illusion of self and intention to play out, whilst not necessarily being believed in as a cause for anything?

To give a personal example, I am currently preparing work for an exhibition and one could say that there is intention to do this. But whose intention is that? It can be assumed that it is "my intention' but it could simply be an appearing intention that is evident at this moment. Rather like top gear on a car when cruising at speed, one could speak of an intention to drive at speed but somehow that gear is selected anyway without thinking, unless the thinking about it happens, but then that is a postscript or else a speculation about a future' in which it will be intended to use top gear.

Is it possible to think about intention without assuming a 'future' or 'past' in which intention either will or did operate? Is it possible to 'intend' right now?

Thank you

Jon


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests