|
Post by Figgles on Feb 21, 2019 5:30:45 GMT
Yes. Exactly. Succinctly said. (lol....love how I had to write paragraphs to say what you said in one sentence). Your explanation has a much better chance of getting through to Gopal. My brevity was mostly out of laziness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 15:18:36 GMT
Yes. And an experience where acceptance and allowance reign, where there's an absence of knee-jerk resistance, pushing against, fighting against, rejecting/echewing that which is currently appearing, could be said to be part and parcel of that 're-arrangement of creation.' It seems though that for Gopal, that's not enough. He insists that the conditions that are initially behind the knee-jerk reaction ofresistance must also disappear from experience. While that 'may' indeed happen, it's not necessarily a given. In delusion, a knee-jerk arising of resistance may happen the moment someone criticizes or judges your actions. But the end of the delusion behind that does not necessarily mean that you will never again be judged or criticized. In freedom/acceptance/allowance of what is, It's the response TO the judging that changes, not necessarily the condition of being judged. Gopal would have to abandon the idea that reaction is determined solely by objective circumstances. There is one single story which is moving and what you call as 'Objective circumstance' is part and parcel of that single story.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 10, 2019 15:24:28 GMT
Gopal would have to abandon the idea that reaction is determined solely by objective circumstances. There is one single story which is moving and what you call as 'Objective circumstance' is part and parcel of that single story. Yes, and so is the reaction. The two are part of the same dream, but one is not connected to the other in a causal way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 15:55:05 GMT
Gopal would have to abandon the idea that reaction is determined solely by objective circumstances. Yup. That's it in a nutshell. Objective circumstance is part and parcel of the one story which is unfolding. The reaction towards the objective circumstance is also part and parcel of the same story. Story is unfolding that way to create that reaction in you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 16:35:11 GMT
Change in creation implies the change in outer world as well. Creation is what you perceive. That's the change I was referring to. Point is that I'm not asserting what you've been saying for years. When the story is unfolding, you don't have the control over it, story decides the movement of your feeling. If you say your deeper understanding would create different story then Gopal is with you.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 10, 2019 16:40:34 GMT
Yup. That's it in a nutshell. Objective circumstance is part and parcel of the one story which is unfolding. The reaction towards the objective circumstance is also part and parcel of the same story. Story is unfolding that way to create that reaction in you.So then, in your model, there is no realization that can free one from being an emotional slave to the story?...are you saying that Even in SR, the story has the power to pull you from Peace, IF it unfolds in a particular way? If so, what you are arguing for is inevitable suffering for which realization has no bearing upon.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Mar 10, 2019 23:33:58 GMT
That's the change I was referring to. Point is that I'm not asserting what you've been saying for years. When the story is unfolding, you don't have the control over it, story decides the movement of your feeling. If you say your deeper understanding would create different story then Gopal is with you. If the story decides feeling, then how could you and I feel differently about the same story?
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 16, 2019 17:48:40 GMT
Maxdprophet posted this over on ST. I really enjoyed reading the essay. Definitely in line with the AH message. The state the author indicates with the term "Between-ness" as a means to manifest desires, is akin to AH's 'getting in the vortex/alignment.'
At the crux of what both are talking about is the phenomenal happening of unconflicted desire/intent manifesting into form/matter/circumstance, naturally, easily and effortlessly.
That absence of conflict is what's foundational to the 'between-ness' he speaks of....and the 'aligment/getting into the vortex AH speaks of.
And really, this conversation about intent/desire absent conflict, segues perfectly with the conversation we're having in the 'morph' thread about a sincere vs. insincere intent to simply 'be' vs. a planned practice regimen.
When intent/desire is unconflicted, aka, singular, undivided, (absent a judgemental, efforting person at it's helm) it moves naturally and effortlessly into manifestation.
When intent/desire to simply 'be'...to look/see what is actually going on, is unconflicted, plain and simply it's what will happen. If there is a need to plan a process of practicing to 'try' to simply be, to try to become clear to what is actually going on, what's actually going on is 'conflict' in terms of intent. Seeing that alone is very powerful in terms of dispelling that conflict.
Within experience, unconflicted intent/desire flows naturally into manifest conditions. The problem with most LOA teachings is that they focus upon the SVP, the chooser/doer/experiencer, the very thing that is at the root of the conflict. And then they have to do sort of a 'round-about dance,' to try to get the seeker to put the person on the back-burner for a bit....long enough so that some momentum towards the natural flow into manifestation can happen. Ultimately, it's a game, albeit one some do find enjoyable to play.
What also seems to get missed, is that in "ultimate betwixtness" (complete absence of conflict/resistance) the very nature of desire itself shifts. Intent arises absent a needy, judgemental person at its helm. Thus, desire/want shifts from the burning/needy variety, to reflect a symbiotic, yet singular movement, between arising intent/manifestation, completely in synch with 'what presently is.'
The types of wants/desires that arise in a conflicted mind are far different than the wants that arise absent conflict...as the reasons behind the want are absent need/sense of fundamental limitation.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 16, 2019 19:07:16 GMT
Conflict free intent does not 'cause' the unfolding effortless/natural, corresponding manifestation, it goes hand hand with it. The two are but correlates within a unified, singular movement. Similarly, conflictive intent/desire, resistance, does not "cause" the unwanted condition/absence of manifest desire, rather, the two go hand in hand, they are but correlates within a singular movement.
LOA posits the conflict free intent/desire as 'causal' to the manifestation. The only way the intent/desire could cause the manifestation is if there is actual separation and of course, there is one. In fact any and all 'actual cause/catalyst' within the dream, would mean that separation is actual.
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Oct 27, 2019 21:13:26 GMT
|
|