Monday, 24 September 2012
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Let me explain something...the futile argument of something versus nothing
Now let me explain something... well actually I can't. The only thing I
can do is point at something and hope that you the viewer will be able
to
gather enough from my pointing that you eventually experience something.
But in actual fact in order for me to really point at something I would
have
to be pointing away from nothing.
Indeed I would have to point in all directions at once including my own pointing device be it my finger, word or existence. Now consider that for a moment. How do I point with a device at itself and at the same time point away from it in all directions without occupying all spaces and thus eliminating the very nothing i am trying to point away from? Well I can not. So how do i then explain ? Like I said I can't.
Confused? I hope so because in being so you might be closer to something than you have ever been before. You see something is nothing in it's own right. That's right. Something is just a relationship, a disctinction that we make in order to filter our experience into manageable chunks of nothing that we then use inorder to experience something. See where that leaves you.... It left me with chunks of nothing.
Now let me explain nothing instead... well I can't do that either. Because I would have to point at nothing. But the mere action of pointing has left me in the land of something and not at all anywhere near the nothing i wanted to point out. No matter how hard I try to point with my being be it with vocabulary, actions or anything else for that matter that i can think of all I will end up doing is leading you on a path so far away from nothing that you will end up back where you started. I.e with big manageable chunks of nothing that you call something.
So where am I getting with this? Hopefully nowhere and fast. The point being that there is no point. No matter how you try to put something versus nothing in any argument. No matter how strong you think your argument might be for either something or nothing of that something you will end up with a mish mash of something and nothing which means anything.
Enter the great missunderstanding in all arguments. The assumption that the other person is someone speaking on something rather than noone speaking on nothing and vice versa. See we argue everything based on assumptions we make. Mostly the assumption is that our experience is somewhat or entirely equal to the experience of the other. When that other uses pointing devices (words or actions) that you do not recognise you immediately assume this someone is wrong about something. However the fact is no one is right about anything.... The best we can do is to get as close to nothing as we can in our search for an experience of something, and in experiencing something we finally come to understand what is nothing.
I know this will sound like gibberish to some and to some it will mean something. Again case in point. There is no one point and what decides is not my intention, your intention, the pointing device or any other such thing that we use to measure the reality of something. Ones experience determines what is. And the experience is entirely based on the ability to cut up nothing into imaginary chunks that you call data or facts. Then how well you compare your collected chunks of nothing with even more chunks of the same determines how well you seem to be able to reason, solve and act at any moment. How close your chunks of nothing resembles the chunks of nothing someone else has collected will amount to how agreeable you find that someone. Someone who is actually just your perception of noone cutting nothing into imaginary chunks.
Absurd? Yes very. But this is just one way of trying to explain to you how much of anything is actually down to your perception or experience as supposed to what some call a fact of a place called reality where something takes place.
Something versus nothing is what is absurd without a context to relate it to it just becomes a total mess as can be seen above. You need nothing in order to point at something by the same token you need to know something in order to point at nothing. Neither is better, higher, wiser than the other. But used within the correct context can actually have meaning within the context of experience.
Just my two cents of nothing created into something. Now what do you make of it?
much love and light
Indeed I would have to point in all directions at once including my own pointing device be it my finger, word or existence. Now consider that for a moment. How do I point with a device at itself and at the same time point away from it in all directions without occupying all spaces and thus eliminating the very nothing i am trying to point away from? Well I can not. So how do i then explain ? Like I said I can't.
Confused? I hope so because in being so you might be closer to something than you have ever been before. You see something is nothing in it's own right. That's right. Something is just a relationship, a disctinction that we make in order to filter our experience into manageable chunks of nothing that we then use inorder to experience something. See where that leaves you.... It left me with chunks of nothing.
Now let me explain nothing instead... well I can't do that either. Because I would have to point at nothing. But the mere action of pointing has left me in the land of something and not at all anywhere near the nothing i wanted to point out. No matter how hard I try to point with my being be it with vocabulary, actions or anything else for that matter that i can think of all I will end up doing is leading you on a path so far away from nothing that you will end up back where you started. I.e with big manageable chunks of nothing that you call something.
So where am I getting with this? Hopefully nowhere and fast. The point being that there is no point. No matter how you try to put something versus nothing in any argument. No matter how strong you think your argument might be for either something or nothing of that something you will end up with a mish mash of something and nothing which means anything.
Enter the great missunderstanding in all arguments. The assumption that the other person is someone speaking on something rather than noone speaking on nothing and vice versa. See we argue everything based on assumptions we make. Mostly the assumption is that our experience is somewhat or entirely equal to the experience of the other. When that other uses pointing devices (words or actions) that you do not recognise you immediately assume this someone is wrong about something. However the fact is no one is right about anything.... The best we can do is to get as close to nothing as we can in our search for an experience of something, and in experiencing something we finally come to understand what is nothing.
I know this will sound like gibberish to some and to some it will mean something. Again case in point. There is no one point and what decides is not my intention, your intention, the pointing device or any other such thing that we use to measure the reality of something. Ones experience determines what is. And the experience is entirely based on the ability to cut up nothing into imaginary chunks that you call data or facts. Then how well you compare your collected chunks of nothing with even more chunks of the same determines how well you seem to be able to reason, solve and act at any moment. How close your chunks of nothing resembles the chunks of nothing someone else has collected will amount to how agreeable you find that someone. Someone who is actually just your perception of noone cutting nothing into imaginary chunks.
Absurd? Yes very. But this is just one way of trying to explain to you how much of anything is actually down to your perception or experience as supposed to what some call a fact of a place called reality where something takes place.
Something versus nothing is what is absurd without a context to relate it to it just becomes a total mess as can be seen above. You need nothing in order to point at something by the same token you need to know something in order to point at nothing. Neither is better, higher, wiser than the other. But used within the correct context can actually have meaning within the context of experience.
Just my two cents of nothing created into something. Now what do you make of it?
much love and light
Sunday, 2 September 2012
I am perfect because...
I love you. Yes you. Not the you you wish you were, the you you were
yesterday, or the you you could become. I just love you, like that, pure
and
simple.
Why? Because I can.
I don't need a reason to love you, other than that you are. I want nothing in return, no recognition and no special action from you. All I ask is that you accept who/how I am. No amount of telling me that I am delusional, insincere or plain dumb is going to change that I love you. And I do so with no special condition on your being.
You are my experience, my mirror and my teacher, without you I would not know what I know, grow the way I do and be able to share in this being. Without you I would be a point in time, a brief moment without goal or reason. Without you I would be obsolete.
When I tell you I love you even after we disagree I am not being sarcastic, I am not trying to make myself superior to you, I am just being honest with how I feel about you. Because what ever you did or did not do how ever painful or filled with joy that experience was to me I recognize that without you that experience would never have been.
This is the being I have always been, the being that loves you as you are, no questions asked, no conditions and no expectations. I love you and I love seeing your potential fulfilled.
See when I am feeling lonely I get hope from seeing that you are not. When I am wrong, you teach me what is right. When I have, you teach me how to give. When I lack, you teach me how to receive. When I want to withdraw from the world, you pull me out of my shell. When I take too much space, you put me in my place. Without you I have no balance. I am just a one way force aimlessly moving in all directions without a post with which to measure my advances.
So to the you's that want to tell me I lie, to the you's that tell me it's impossible. I love you for all the reasons and more that I told you of above.
I am you and I am perfect because you are
Thank you
Why? Because I can.
I don't need a reason to love you, other than that you are. I want nothing in return, no recognition and no special action from you. All I ask is that you accept who/how I am. No amount of telling me that I am delusional, insincere or plain dumb is going to change that I love you. And I do so with no special condition on your being.
You are my experience, my mirror and my teacher, without you I would not know what I know, grow the way I do and be able to share in this being. Without you I would be a point in time, a brief moment without goal or reason. Without you I would be obsolete.
When I tell you I love you even after we disagree I am not being sarcastic, I am not trying to make myself superior to you, I am just being honest with how I feel about you. Because what ever you did or did not do how ever painful or filled with joy that experience was to me I recognize that without you that experience would never have been.
This is the being I have always been, the being that loves you as you are, no questions asked, no conditions and no expectations. I love you and I love seeing your potential fulfilled.
See when I am feeling lonely I get hope from seeing that you are not. When I am wrong, you teach me what is right. When I have, you teach me how to give. When I lack, you teach me how to receive. When I want to withdraw from the world, you pull me out of my shell. When I take too much space, you put me in my place. Without you I have no balance. I am just a one way force aimlessly moving in all directions without a post with which to measure my advances.
So to the you's that want to tell me I lie, to the you's that tell me it's impossible. I love you for all the reasons and more that I told you of above.
I am you and I am perfect because you are
Thank you
Monday, 25 June 2012
I Am defining awarness....just thoughts
The concept of eliminating the Ego also sometimes confused by the I Am awareness is something that features heavily in spiritual awareness circles as a desirable goal. Get rid of the ego (I Am) and live in permanent bliss. But is this really true? Who do you know Guru or otherwise, that is not aware that they are. That do not respond by saying I Am when asked a question as to their state of being.
I tend to think that nature has provided for us in every way possible and that we have all the necessary tools with us to reach awareness. The I Am and the ego (which are separate manifestations of conscious awareness of being) are no different.
To reach awareness one just need to understand what they are and their purpose in the larger scheme of being. But in essence just being is quite enough, and exactly what is needed to become aware.
In my understanding the I Am is another word for recognition of what makes us unique to any given situation. We use I Am to define our boundaries to the world, so that we can use those to explore everything that is not included in our I Am function.
For example saying "I Am Angela" clearly defines that in order to get your attention one must call for Angela. However Angela does not describe anything at all. It is just a sound. So really you are not Angela, the sound to get your attention is. Yet we put all our identity into that sound as if our living depended on it. When we put this into perspective we might find just how absurd it really is by stating:
"Hi I Am A Name."
We can then go on to state all the things we recognize as part of our I Am experience like, our occupation, our civil state, our age, our height, emotional state etc etc. What we find is that the only thing that is constant is our belief that we are. I Am.
So in essence I Am is simply awareness of being in its purest form. And is endless in it's possibilities. The only true and permanent answer to any question about who and what is I Am.
When we recognize that the I Am rather than define us and bind us is what frees us and allow us to experience anything and everything - we come to realize our true potential as beings. Welcome to awareness of being. Or being aware.
So if the I Am is pure awareness then what is the Ego and how are they different?
Well Ego to my understanding is the control center of being. It is what wants us safe and well so that we can carry on being awareness for as long as possible. It seeks out answers to what if questions in order to understand possibilities within the boundaries of our accumulated experiences. The Ego does not like sudden changes. It wants organized predictable chunks of reality events to deal with, so that it can carry out it's task of evaluating what ifs and protect our being from transitioning into unknown territory where certainty of awareness might not exist.
Further more Ego loves I Am but it is not it. This can easily be tested by saying out aloud "I Am Ego". It doesn't make sense because we are not. I Am and Ego is it's keeper. When we say "I Am Egoistic" we are not saying we are the Ego but rather that the I Am is focusing on the Ego function. The Ego in that sense is to our I Am as an arm is to our bodies. Just one part within I Am. A tool.
Now that we understand this we also see how preposterous it is to try to eliminate the Ego from our being. Rather than seeking to destroy it all we have to do is understand that Ego is not always right in it's ways and does not always see things clearly. Nor is it always necessary to listen to the Ego's ranting about what should be. We can, when we are aware ignore the Ego entirely as and when we are required to in order to move beyond our current boundaries. This in my view is what being conscious or enlightened means. Recognition that I Am is the only thing that we are. We are all it.
I Am and so are you
Just for today embrace the I Am, allow the I Am to be to it's fullest potential, because you are no more and no less...
I tend to think that nature has provided for us in every way possible and that we have all the necessary tools with us to reach awareness. The I Am and the ego (which are separate manifestations of conscious awareness of being) are no different.
To reach awareness one just need to understand what they are and their purpose in the larger scheme of being. But in essence just being is quite enough, and exactly what is needed to become aware.
In my understanding the I Am is another word for recognition of what makes us unique to any given situation. We use I Am to define our boundaries to the world, so that we can use those to explore everything that is not included in our I Am function.
For example saying "I Am Angela" clearly defines that in order to get your attention one must call for Angela. However Angela does not describe anything at all. It is just a sound. So really you are not Angela, the sound to get your attention is. Yet we put all our identity into that sound as if our living depended on it. When we put this into perspective we might find just how absurd it really is by stating:
"Hi I Am A Name."
We can then go on to state all the things we recognize as part of our I Am experience like, our occupation, our civil state, our age, our height, emotional state etc etc. What we find is that the only thing that is constant is our belief that we are. I Am.
So in essence I Am is simply awareness of being in its purest form. And is endless in it's possibilities. The only true and permanent answer to any question about who and what is I Am.
When we recognize that the I Am rather than define us and bind us is what frees us and allow us to experience anything and everything - we come to realize our true potential as beings. Welcome to awareness of being. Or being aware.
So if the I Am is pure awareness then what is the Ego and how are they different?
Well Ego to my understanding is the control center of being. It is what wants us safe and well so that we can carry on being awareness for as long as possible. It seeks out answers to what if questions in order to understand possibilities within the boundaries of our accumulated experiences. The Ego does not like sudden changes. It wants organized predictable chunks of reality events to deal with, so that it can carry out it's task of evaluating what ifs and protect our being from transitioning into unknown territory where certainty of awareness might not exist.
Further more Ego loves I Am but it is not it. This can easily be tested by saying out aloud "I Am Ego". It doesn't make sense because we are not. I Am and Ego is it's keeper. When we say "I Am Egoistic" we are not saying we are the Ego but rather that the I Am is focusing on the Ego function. The Ego in that sense is to our I Am as an arm is to our bodies. Just one part within I Am. A tool.
Now that we understand this we also see how preposterous it is to try to eliminate the Ego from our being. Rather than seeking to destroy it all we have to do is understand that Ego is not always right in it's ways and does not always see things clearly. Nor is it always necessary to listen to the Ego's ranting about what should be. We can, when we are aware ignore the Ego entirely as and when we are required to in order to move beyond our current boundaries. This in my view is what being conscious or enlightened means. Recognition that I Am is the only thing that we are. We are all it.
I Am and so are you
Just for today embrace the I Am, allow the I Am to be to it's fullest potential, because you are no more and no less...
Awekening, enlightenment, awareness....
Awakening have all the symptoms and disorientation of waking up.
Enlightenment is what happens when your 'eyes' are still adjusting to the light being turned on.
Awareness is what comes after and the state of both being awake and seeing clearly what was always there when you were still asleep and too deep in dreamland to notice.
We too often confuse the exiting energizing stage of waking up and enlightenment with a desired higher state of permanence when in fact they are only transitional stages.
Stay exited for too long and you will eventually burn out.
Waking up and turning on the light is not the days work, it is what you do once you are awake that is. Part of it, is knowing when to rest and go back to sleep.
I Am
Enlightenment is what happens when your 'eyes' are still adjusting to the light being turned on.
Awareness is what comes after and the state of both being awake and seeing clearly what was always there when you were still asleep and too deep in dreamland to notice.
We too often confuse the exiting energizing stage of waking up and enlightenment with a desired higher state of permanence when in fact they are only transitional stages.
Stay exited for too long and you will eventually burn out.
Waking up and turning on the light is not the days work, it is what you do once you are awake that is. Part of it, is knowing when to rest and go back to sleep.
I Am
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
