The Gate

So if the mind is seen for what it is, an overlay on what is real (sometimes useful, often deleterious), but ever present, then what more is required to be able to recognise the Real ?
The apparent movement towards an unknown state is illusion begat of story. Liberation is not a state. BEing human, means experiencing the full range of possibilities that the organism is capable of. (the 'yet to be liberated' use story to inhibit a full range and thus perpetuate the illusion of personal control)

love, peace & goodwill

vince

So if the mind is seen for what it is, an overlay on what is real (sometimes useful, often deleterious), but ever present, then what more is required to be able to recognise the Real ?

Nothing, I suppose... the mind imagines (begat of story, as you say) that there must be something it is missing. but there's real and then there's story about real, and that distinction is quite clear. well, the distinction feels a little trickier in the realm of emotions... a thought is clearly a thought. a sensation clearly a sensation. emotions tend to bounce back and forth so fast that they are difficult to disentangle.

BEing human, means experiencing the full range of possibilities that the organism is capable of. (the 'yet to be liberated' use story to inhibit a full range and thus perpetuate the illusion of personal control)

have read this last line multiple times in subsequent sittings at the computer and its like i read the words but there's something that doesn't compute or penetrate. i think it's because the mind is jumping all around the words trying to both make sense of the them and defend against them at the same time.

"inhibit a full range of experiences": for example, just now walking my dog he stopped to sniff in front of a home with a bunch of people on the front porch. knowing this might mean he might decide to do his business in front of this group, which the mind suspected/calculated by their stares might actually be offended, especially if he peed on their front stoop, initiated a quick response of dragging him quickly off to the corner. kind of a dumb example, but unpacking it-- mind's conditioning predicted discomfort with possibly offending these people (in other words, resisting chagrin/embarrassment/awkwark moment-- ie., resisting full range of possibilities), and so it responds by acting to avoid it. mind thinks it has controlled the situation-- prevented a potentially uncomfortable moment. the reality is, the mind has no idea what the dog intended, or the people intended, and was in fact reacting to it's story. the mind defends itself, with "knowing both the dog and the neighborhood that was the best thing to do." i realize there are no shoulds here-- only what is, which in this case, is just me dragging my dog down the road-- but...

i also realize i'm back to the blah blah blah, but if the mind does indeed inhibit experience, doesn't that imply at least an iota of control on some level? not that i can control the mind (which clearly can't be done), but that the mind thinks X, does Y and avoids Z. i'm not saying this is a good thing-- it seems generally to protect what doesn't need protecting and thus limits the organism's growth-- just that there's some confusion here.

off to bed with intention to dream on the first half of your post (since that produces more ease relative to the latter which produces much mental noise...)

.. doesn't that imply at least an iota of control on some level?

You might say that there was a decision made (control) at some level, simply not a personal decision. But as we look deeper, was there a choice exercised ? Was an alternative considered ?
Might it be, that the conditions that were in place (the interpretation of the people's body language, the dogs behaviour, the story of possible outcome that was based on previous experience or other stories heard, etc), that those conditions resulted in the only possible result ? No choice, No decisions, No control. Just automatic happenings.

metta

vince

No choice, No decisions, No control. Just automatic happenings.

Seems to be an automatic happening that just as things start to drop in, this meat sack drops out. Have made it 3/4 of the way through the piece you sent me to read. I think the aggressive (kinda like Jed) tone doesn't resonate so much. There is some helpful stuff in there though, so I'll keep at it. To bed...

Yes, i'm not endorsing it. i just found that several of the articles resonated here.
If any questions arise for you when reading it, then a discussion on it may be indicated.

vince

have been all over the place this week, literally and figuratively, but the one thing that landed from the blog was how ridiculous it is to take this identity personally-- as if "I" had anything to do with its DNA, with its conditioning. when that sunk in (which it seems to have to do a 1,000 times) it was natural to extend that to others as well. all just unique representations animated by the same energy. that sense hasn't persisted so much-- so easily drawn into the "to do" list at hand, and the personal dramas that surround it.

what didn't appeal so much was the notion of "disgust" towards not seeing and a general feel (at times more than others) that something has to be forced and reckoned with. i find that most of my openings happen when it's all allowed-- nothing forced, already here, perfectly imperfect. or is that just this personality resisting edginess, as per its conditioning?

anyway, thanks for your patience.

Once again this meat sack awaits response instead of plucking away, the latter of which has proven to be more beneficial (at least within the story of waking up). Not sure how to shake that pattern up. There is quite a bit of shifting and moving here, in fits and spurts and then subsequent vacuums. Much quicker to notice and open to moods conditioning historically rejects/spins off on. Also, lots of opportunities to see that i always have what i need. Almost to absurdity of late. Seems to be a lesson i really need to learn.

Still challenging to integrate this work with professional hats. Is the distinction as simple as-- if engagement happens without tension (and with energy and a background sense of curiosity, even fun) then the stories are just doing their thing-- living. but when the stories take on weight and SERIOUSNESS then there's probably an overindulgence in the story happening. yes? or does this too miss the point?

Also, Vince, if you feel this has gone on long enough for you-- I totally get it. I won't quit. Might start a new string (which I've been wanting to do for a while!) but the commitment is quite clear on this (at least in terms of not giving up). So grateful for all your pointings and eager for more but not attached.

Love love--

Thanks for your patience. Thankyou for coming back at my non response.
Did you have stories about what that might mean ?
i didn't do it on purpose. It was just that there was nothing that jumped out at me in your last post. When this happens, i usually just leave it until i come across it next and mostly there is something wanting to be expressed. This time that didn't happen.
It doesn't mean that i wish to discontinue with you.
If it resonates for you, the idea of starting a new thread with another guide, then do it.
i have thoroughly enjoyed our communications, but can't help entertaining the story that another guide might be able to point Ix to a more productive portal that this one has been able to.

Still challenging to integrate this work with professional hats. Is the distinction as simple as-- if engagement happens without tension (and with energy and a background sense of curiosity, even fun) then the stories are just doing their thing-- living, but when the stories take on weight and SERIOUSNESS then there's probably an overindulgence in the story happening. yes?

Even here, many stories are indulged. Examination found them to be useful and without a suffering component.
When you say "take on weight and SERIOUSNESS.." i presume that you mean those that suck you in and have significant suffering results ?
All stories just do their thing. On examination what this is, consists of thought streams that evoke responses. It is the belief thoughts that inhibit awareness. Belief thoughts say "don't examine this. Allow it to happen at a level below conscious awareness, to happen automatically."
Those belief thoughts also have complete stories attached to them. Stories that legitimise the beliefs. They do, of course consist entirely of more thoughts. All of which take us away from the NOW.
If the question "At this moment, Is it true ?" is asked at the moment of Recognition...

and eager for more but not attached.

i ask the question here, if i am attached, as enjoyment is always present whenever attending (the idea of) you.

love love

vince

Did you have stories about what that might mean ?

A couple times I wondered what might be happening on your side of the pond-- sick?, just busy? moving on?-- but just passing thoughts. no story here about anything wrong or right, no weight to it-- though there's a general preference for you being well!

It is the belief thoughts that inhibit awareness.

just read a sweet quote by emily dickenson about believing and disbelieving many times a day in order to "keep believing nimble." love that. this meat sack tends to replace old beliefs with ones that seem to work better in the world and while they are held a wee bit more "nimbly", they nevertheless still produce streams of thinking-- different thoughts then before but thoughts nonetheless.

occasionally remember that while the fridge noise of one model may be different than another, perhaps more efficient than the other, it's nevertheless just noise.

how about let's shake this up a bit. i'll start a new string but i'll also send you a personal note here and again if something new pops in for me or to see if anything pops in for you that might be useful, and/or just to say hi.

and i suppose if this string continues, that's fine too! ha ha ha...

ok

v

Hi Rebecca, thoughts of you came (loudly) into this mind today.
How are you ? How is it going there ?

Love

vince