05-04-2008, 12:00 AM
The mind needs a story to fixate upon as a vehicle to traverse into areas outside of what is known to it, the fixation of what is known is so strong
that pure abstraction is often insufficient to break that fixation.
Once that new field of conceptualisation is arrived upon however, then it is time to abandon the vehicle and have a good look around at where we have
been delivered to.
Holding onto the story is the problem, not the techniques or the concepts but the personalisation and possession of a new perspective which was only
meant to deliver you to another point in order to break the previous fixation.
To break one fixation, fluid conceptual fixations must be created so we may see within multiples that have fragments from each, and by virtue of being
subject to multiplicity the mind collapses because reason cannot cope with the unknown factors within that equation.
The contradiction here is the terminology is needed; only but for a moment ,then we must squarely look at this terminology with that liquescent fluidity
that is our heritage, which we have lost.
Fixation itelf is shadow atttention to be fixated is to be trapped in an avenue of awareness, which is to lose access to a multilateral fluidity that
encompasses many dimensions, many perspectives, and is our true nature, our liquescence.
….. So it is in the letting go of the terminology where the major issue is at the moment. It is entrapping awareness because of the investment within
that understanding, because in reality there is no way to really understand how awareness and intent manifests the realities that present themselves, until one
sees.
To hook onto the abstract we borrow understanding from another in order to arrive at a point where that expansive abstract principle can be integrated
within our being in a genuine, holistic sense.
This dissolves the need for terminology and makes obselete the identification because the integrated knowing does not need to be held onto, it is simply
known. The problem with intelligence is that it can appropriate concepts and simply add them to its repertoire of 'the known', creating a more
inclusive fixation, which is nevertheless still linear and rigid because it is possessed and defended.
................................................................
Bob
I hope you find this interesting
Part of what has been written here has largely been contributed by one of my oldest students; Naomi Jean
Now when you were reading this your assumption was something other than what you know now.
Even though you would say that it was your real mind that has responded
Is that the truth?
What we really know and what we think we know are two different things.
So what one can actually deduce from this exercise is something different to what you thought you knew in the beginning.
And the question is what you think you know?
And is what you thought you knew really you?
Or something else?
that pure abstraction is often insufficient to break that fixation.
Once that new field of conceptualisation is arrived upon however, then it is time to abandon the vehicle and have a good look around at where we have
been delivered to.
Holding onto the story is the problem, not the techniques or the concepts but the personalisation and possession of a new perspective which was only
meant to deliver you to another point in order to break the previous fixation.
To break one fixation, fluid conceptual fixations must be created so we may see within multiples that have fragments from each, and by virtue of being
subject to multiplicity the mind collapses because reason cannot cope with the unknown factors within that equation.
The contradiction here is the terminology is needed; only but for a moment ,then we must squarely look at this terminology with that liquescent fluidity
that is our heritage, which we have lost.
Fixation itelf is shadow atttention to be fixated is to be trapped in an avenue of awareness, which is to lose access to a multilateral fluidity that
encompasses many dimensions, many perspectives, and is our true nature, our liquescence.
….. So it is in the letting go of the terminology where the major issue is at the moment. It is entrapping awareness because of the investment within
that understanding, because in reality there is no way to really understand how awareness and intent manifests the realities that present themselves, until one
sees.
To hook onto the abstract we borrow understanding from another in order to arrive at a point where that expansive abstract principle can be integrated
within our being in a genuine, holistic sense.
This dissolves the need for terminology and makes obselete the identification because the integrated knowing does not need to be held onto, it is simply
known. The problem with intelligence is that it can appropriate concepts and simply add them to its repertoire of 'the known', creating a more
inclusive fixation, which is nevertheless still linear and rigid because it is possessed and defended.
................................................................
Bob
I hope you find this interesting
Part of what has been written here has largely been contributed by one of my oldest students; Naomi Jean
Now when you were reading this your assumption was something other than what you know now.
Even though you would say that it was your real mind that has responded
Is that the truth?
What we really know and what we think we know are two different things.
So what one can actually deduce from this exercise is something different to what you thought you knew in the beginning.
And the question is what you think you know?
And is what you thought you knew really you?
Or something else?