Saturday, 30 July 2011

A private message from 'Topology'

If I may ask you some questions about what you put forward.

Originally Posted by Rikki
Firstly, it's very cool you've come forward about this man.

Secondly, it's not a facade i'm keeping up on the forum, just keeping the focus on the Truth. It's so easy to stray and get into meaningless banter, which seems to happen in my absence.

Do you treat people differently? Are you the way you are on this forum with every person in your life, your mother, father, siblings, wife, friends, boss, teachers, strangers on the street, etc. ?

Originally Posted by Rikki
I will read this text, as you've shown me you're keen to at least take a real look at what i'm presenting here, so mutual respect on that.

The reason I was so reluctant before (and now) is because this is such a simple thing to get, it doesn't need me to read and reply on every single point.

I agree, its so simple that it is the most overlooked aspect of our reality. The problem seems to be a compounding of two factors: 1) Looking is always outwardly oriented and 2) We have been conditioned from birth to think of ourselves as a physical object or entity.

May I make a couple observations? I think you'll agree with this first one: 1) Talking about looking is not looking. 2) Telling other people to look is talking about looking. 3) When you tell another person to do something, you are placing yourself in control and commanding their will. 4) People resist the appearance of not being in control. 5) People resist looking when they are told to look.

The RT forums work (for the non-trolls and the stubborn) because people have come TO the RT forum, so it is in their will to give up their will to someone else in order to receive guidance.

You have come here to assert your will over others, and the community on this forum is for the most part defensive in your perspective because people are fending off your will in order to preserve their own. If anybody is going to look, they must do it willingly.

Do you understand what a "manner" is? As in the manner in which you approach people or the way in which you approach people? If you are wanting people to look, then you are engaging a game of persuasion. Telling someone to do something is not persuading them. It is the way you put forward your suggestion that is causing so much resistance. Again, when someone comes to the RT forum, they are seeking to give up their will. The best guides on the RT forum are the ones that are skilled at seeing where the other person's mind is at and then persuading them to look. If you notice, even on the RT forums, telling someone to look has little persuasive effect. So when you step forward into a foreign environment where you will be interpreted as a stranger, the defenses are already up and the resistance to being told what to do is even stronger. The ability to melt this resistance is an acquired skill.

Can you see a difference between someone coming to an RT forum to interact with you as they perceive you to be an expert at the RT forum versus you going out into a foreign land and then having to project the image of expertise into the minds of others? It's a bit like the catholic church going over the Americas to convert the natives versus staying in their homeland where their expertise as religious authority is presumed.

Originally Posted by Rikki
You say you've been looking for about 8 years, so you're saying you see self is an illusion?

Yes, all self, including no-self is illusion, constructed out of the details of what we see. There is no thing which is actually doing the seeing. There is only seeing and thought occurring within the seeing. Within that thought there are details about this and that and thoughts of self or having no-self.

Originally Posted by Rikki
Or is there a self operating?

Of course there is. But before you have a thought-reaction to my statement, let me explain how I have come to that conclusion. The body is always in sympathetic harmony with the mind. When a thought occurs "I have to get to work", the body and mind begin to make that thought a reality by going through the motions and routine of getting to work. Within this thought-reactive system there develops an understanding of how the body, mind, personality, emotions, and observer relate to the environment around it. Those thoughts about relationship between this and that form a self-concept or self-complex within the mind. Through experience the understood relationship between self and environment evolves. While self may just be a cluster of thoughts, and we can see that the cluster is artificially constructed, it is the natural process of intelligence, the mind, and the brain to develop that cluster of thought of self in order to intelligently navigate the world. So yes, there is self operating, but it is nothing more than a computer which develops a concept of self in order to intelligently manipulate and navigate the robot (body) it occupies in relation to the perceived world.

Originally Posted by Rikki
(I know this is probably in the text, but I haven't read it yet, so i'm just keeping it short for this message)

Speak soon

I'm 32 years old. I saw what you're referring to when I was 24. But I'm also hyper intelligent. My undergraduate is in computer science and I am working on a PhD in computer science. Prior to seeing directly, I worked 4 years prior towards dismantling my concept of self to the point where I could see without interpretation of what I was seeing. I've put my story somewhere in the thread.

Now you can respect me for my education and intellect or not, it doesn't matter. If you sit down and with what I am saying, I think its pretty plain if you're open to reading it. (Does that sound like the line you're using on the forum?)

The seeing is not just simple, it is DUMB. I'm not referring to its intelligence, but its ability to speak vocally. The seeing itself is unable to say anything. The mind under the influence of seeing is what speaks for the seeing. If you read the post I linked to, the subject-self, the EYE, needs the object-self, the I, to speak for it. In this way, the mind must be the faithful servant of the seeing. And the mind's ability to skillfully express insight is a combination of two things: 1) The clarity of sight and 2) The agility of the mind. Both of those things are actually properties of the mind. If the mind is foggy or convoluted, then sight is obscured. If the mind is dull or lethargic, it is not able to have potent thought in order to faithfully express the clarity of sight.

Seeing the Seeing isn't the end, it is the beginning for the mind to develop true understanding. It is the first time the mind comes into contact with an absolute reference point. A person's evolution and purification of the mind and psyche doesn't stop or begin with the seeing. In order to get to a point of clarity, the person has to have already been dedicated to the path of cultivating the mind. Before the seeing, it is an endeavor of purification in order to see clearly and a practice of flexibility in order to be agile. After the seeing, the same practices are pursued in order to more faithfully express the seeing and to cultivate the skill with helping others to come into their own seeing.

Are we on the same page so far, that Cultivation of the Mind is an essential component in order to obtain the CLARITY OF SIGHT which enables the Seeing of The Seeing and then Cultivation Of The Mind becomes essential for CLARITY OF EXPRESSION afterwards? I am speaking from the mind, yes, but I am also speaking from a cultivated mind under the influence of direct sight.

If we are in agreement so far, then let me put forward a few observations and claims:

1) That cultivation of the mind is more essential than seeing the seeing with an uncultivated mind. (the mind is just going to say 'huh, what? I don't get it')

2) The RT forums are great for pushing the cultivated mind over the edge of the cliff into direct sight, but the RT forums SUCK for the cultivation of the mind before and after the seeing.

3) Cultivation of Mind requires a depth of life experience.

4) Seeing the Seeing is not right for everyone all the time. Most people need to work on purifying the mind and psyche in order to shift into a perpetual abiding in Direct Sight.

5) In order to help others, you first must see the condition of their minds clearly in order to know whether they need to work on cultivation or are ready to be pushed off the cliff, or have already fallen off the cliff and need to go back to cultivation of the mind under the influence of direct sight.

6) That a hyper-focus on the cultivation of the mind puts one into the position to fall into seeing the seeing more easily.

7) Enlightenment and liberation are non-sense terms and a distraction since direct sight reveals that there is nothing to get enlightened and that what is true now has always been true except for our lack of understanding.

8) Saving the world is not a concern for the seeing, it is a concern for the mind.

9) The self-complex is real and persists past the seeing of the seeing, but it is understood for what it is, mental programming in order to skillfully animate the flesh.

10) The RT forum has a definite culture centered around seeing the seeing and knocking people into it, but there is a complete lack of understanding of what it means to have a healthy mind. Seeing the seeing does not itself lead to having a healthy mind. The caustic energy is anti-integration and Integration of the Self-complex (bringing it into wholeness) is an essential quality of Cultivation of the Mind.

11) Seeing of one's own Seeing, and Seeing one's own Mind in action does not give one the ability to skillfully move another person's mind into Seeing if that other mind moves differently. This is one of the fundamentally flawed assumptions being perpetuated on the RT forums, that everyone can be brought into Seeing through the same way. The second fundamentally flawed assumption of the RT forum is that seeing the seeing is more important than cultivation of the Mind. The third fundamentally flawed assumption on the RT forum is that there is no valuation for cultivation of the Heart. It is the Heart which melts the resistance of others and persuades them to bring down the defenses.

12) Look at the evidence before you. You walked into a new environment and instead of melting into it and it into you, the environment has for the most part become rigid, defensive and resistive. This is due to a complete lack of HEART in the WAY you approach the environment. The man filled with HEART will melt any barriers and experience little to no resistance.

Take it or leave it. I'm speaking to you as a peer on the path, not a superior. I'm not here to "enlighten you". If anything, I'm trying to help you become MORE EFFECTIVE in your approach to helping others.

I will be posting this conversation in the thread eventually. I find that insights pour out of me when I am speaking to a specific context and there are many valuable insights in this missive which build on the perspective I'm coming from.

1 comment:

  1. I would just ignore this. It's 10% decent insight and 90% falsehood based on speculations which the author has quite clearly never tried to test.

    Failing that, Rikki, you could just take a little time and take this apart as a real philosopher. It shouldn't take long - I mean, this guy actually speaks of the mind as if it were a single distinct entity, and uses that as a foundation for his arguments.