06-27-2006, 12:00 AM
Multiple conclusions that are fluid within a fluctuating viewpoint that is equal to that which presents itself at the moment that has escaped us. What I was implying is that we are a body of information. Ironic isnt it, when we talk about the human form, it is a body of knowledge that is equal to the containment that is held by each individual?
Imagine if one were to pick up a thimble and within that thimble was water. The thimble represents the containment of water which is an unknown substance yet still to be fully comprehended by humanity. Now take this thimble of water and put it in a ceramic jar; then we have containment within containment.
The larger containment field will say to the lesser: come join me there is more to be known out here.
But the thimble then says, I cant. I cannot comprehend the empty space between my containment field and yours.
And then a jug comes along full of water to give a helping hand and fills the jar with water to help accommodate the traversing of the inner stratosphere of the cup which is the thimbles external stratosphere.
Bear in mind at this point the jar is wondering how did the jug comprehend to pour its water into the empty jar. Thus is the dilemma of identification and comprehending how a concept is arrived at through the idea of containment and transferal of bodies of knowledge into containment fields for comprehension, which in essence will bear its own reflection upon the water poured in.
Bear in mind this analogy is to do with containment only and the structural restrictions caused by containment. The water is really the element to understand.
And the question is: how did the thimble, even though it is so small, contain water in the first place, and why did the jar have more empty space, yet no fluidity? And how did the jug work out it could pour itself into others?
Artnwere - you've changed your post above and I've answered and as you can see I cut and pasted the post you originally put there before you edited it.
My friend you have too much to defend. This shows me clearly where you are. I do not wish to be drawn into this loop anymore because it is obvious you cannot see where I am coming from.
What I have written are personal experiences. I do not need to refer to any buddhist teachings, shamanic traditions. My truths are first hand truths, not second hand and if you think this is arrogant then so be it. But here is where the conversation is going to end.
You'll have to play with somebody else for your entertainment; not me.
To see within dimension is compartmentalization; structures within structures.. This structural anomaly occurs when one is in the living construct. And then when one becomes luminous, one becomes perception itself; intent or will.
This perception can be broken up into luminous compartments outside of the living construct but once this compartmentalization is amalgamated through unification of these compartments, within the living construct, one begins the journey; the traversing of the unknown.
And yes, if one of these compartments is localized within, then this compartment becomes a construct, and if seen from only one perspective, then this perspective becomes linear and then trapped within that localization.
Localization upon intellectual conceptualization is the trap of the ideology . It is linear within nature.
The old sorcerers travelled upon one avenue at a time and in the end when they tried to amalgamate all the avenues, they failed.
To have each separate compartment lit at the same time, one must remember simultaneously upon those avenues or compartments that have been traversed.
Within our luminous form we are compartmentalized within dimension. To be aware of this multilateral facility one must let go of the former ideological structure to become what we are, and in nature this is beyond language; even though this seems to be a contradiction in terms, it just is, when seen. In the end we are the sum total of our doings and we will be faced by those doings at the moment of our death. Or is it our death in every moment that we live, that faces us with what we do?
Imagine if one were to pick up a thimble and within that thimble was water. The thimble represents the containment of water which is an unknown substance yet still to be fully comprehended by humanity. Now take this thimble of water and put it in a ceramic jar; then we have containment within containment.
The larger containment field will say to the lesser: come join me there is more to be known out here.
But the thimble then says, I cant. I cannot comprehend the empty space between my containment field and yours.
And then a jug comes along full of water to give a helping hand and fills the jar with water to help accommodate the traversing of the inner stratosphere of the cup which is the thimbles external stratosphere.
Bear in mind at this point the jar is wondering how did the jug comprehend to pour its water into the empty jar. Thus is the dilemma of identification and comprehending how a concept is arrived at through the idea of containment and transferal of bodies of knowledge into containment fields for comprehension, which in essence will bear its own reflection upon the water poured in.
Bear in mind this analogy is to do with containment only and the structural restrictions caused by containment. The water is really the element to understand.
And the question is: how did the thimble, even though it is so small, contain water in the first place, and why did the jar have more empty space, yet no fluidity? And how did the jug work out it could pour itself into others?
Artnwere - you've changed your post above and I've answered and as you can see I cut and pasted the post you originally put there before you edited it.
My friend you have too much to defend. This shows me clearly where you are. I do not wish to be drawn into this loop anymore because it is obvious you cannot see where I am coming from.
What I have written are personal experiences. I do not need to refer to any buddhist teachings, shamanic traditions. My truths are first hand truths, not second hand and if you think this is arrogant then so be it. But here is where the conversation is going to end.
You'll have to play with somebody else for your entertainment; not me.
To see within dimension is compartmentalization; structures within structures.. This structural anomaly occurs when one is in the living construct. And then when one becomes luminous, one becomes perception itself; intent or will.
This perception can be broken up into luminous compartments outside of the living construct but once this compartmentalization is amalgamated through unification of these compartments, within the living construct, one begins the journey; the traversing of the unknown.
And yes, if one of these compartments is localized within, then this compartment becomes a construct, and if seen from only one perspective, then this perspective becomes linear and then trapped within that localization.
Localization upon intellectual conceptualization is the trap of the ideology . It is linear within nature.
The old sorcerers travelled upon one avenue at a time and in the end when they tried to amalgamate all the avenues, they failed.
To have each separate compartment lit at the same time, one must remember simultaneously upon those avenues or compartments that have been traversed.
Within our luminous form we are compartmentalized within dimension. To be aware of this multilateral facility one must let go of the former ideological structure to become what we are, and in nature this is beyond language; even though this seems to be a contradiction in terms, it just is, when seen. In the end we are the sum total of our doings and we will be faced by those doings at the moment of our death. Or is it our death in every moment that we live, that faces us with what we do?