You are not logged in.

#1 2021-06-13 15:39:38

HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

This conceptual dichotomy that we find in the last installment of Gosia's "metaphysical" conversations with Yazhi/Swaruú, is implicit to the nature of the duality of consciousness that swims in a sea agitated by the winds of opposites. We could say that this divergence of opposites is attenuated as we climb the rungs of the ladder of 3D, 5D, 6D, 7D... etc. densities. That is, the higher the density level the less duality. This means that the internal conflict of existentiality is softened as we progressively integrate all that is both rejected and accepted.
But my own verified understanding of this proposition is fallacious in that when we speak of enlightenment with capital letters, this progressive idea of "more or less duality" is inaccurate since there is no gradient of conflict as such.

This is still even in its lesser expression of conflict, (less duality) DUALITY. This is like saying there is such a thing as "a woman a little pregnant"; either the woman is pregnant or she is NOT pregnant, there are no gradients of pregnancy.  I have never heard any obstetrician say: "well... your pregnancy test reveals that you are only a little bit pregnant, but... the test we did on the previous pregnant woman proved that she was more pregnant than you.

By using this simile as an example, I am trying to imply that enlightenment, the true enlightenment, is radically NON-dual. It is like seeing the oceanity of the Universe in one gulp. Either you are enlightened or you are NOT enlightened. It is black or white. There is no gray scale here. There is no relativism in cognition.
Let's see how Yazhi Tasherit puts it:

Yazhi Tasherit wrote:



(.... ) Gosia, if there are degrees, that's why there is 3D, 5D, 6D, 7D.... If you feel integrated into the Whole, but still being a 'Gosia concept' that is separate from the others, that is equivalent to an understanding of like 7D or 8D where there is still an 'I' as a concept present. In 9D there remains only a concept of, or the idea, that something could be formed below, an intention. The 'I' is almost completely dissolved in the collective of consciousness.



(...) Notice that in the state of "the Source", the unification of the whole, the state of perfect enlightenment, there is no self, there is no experience. So it is equivalent to nothingness, to emptiness..., and not even that. Impossible to define because if you define it, it is not. So total enlightenment is equivalent to not being. And that's why you prefer to live in densities where there is a notion of being. Of an 'I'.

Yazhi Tasherit

Well, what I am getting at... To understand that this enlightenment with capital letters of which Yazhi Tasherit speaks to us entails the Understanding of the NON-MAKER, that is, of the one who is known "from" (this, "from", does not represent a location) the unknowable" which is unnameable. (I flee from expressing it as "Source" since this connotes and denotes an origin, something that does not reflect its reality at all).

Here, the one who lies in this Understanding, his actions are NOT conditioned by the devised "self-imposition", to culminate a destiny, a goal, a mission, an action that brings a self benefit to configure an identity built and concluded on the same action of the "I", as Swarúu expresses it:

Swaruu wrote:

(...) But then ask yourself why you help, why you want to help them. In the end, there is even an ego component, to defend the concept you have about who you are. But you don't need to help. That's a choice.

Swaruu


That is to say, you are conditioning the action by the very idea of transformation that this "I-idea" will obtain, once the action is concluded or culminated.  It is here where you end up chained to the same action with which you intend to free yourself or even "free others". Here it is worth asking to what extent that which you believe liberates you is nothing more than a prison in which the only thing you have done is to expand the distance between the bars that keep you trapped. Therefore, whom to liberate if you do not know the freedom of your own freedom?

Yazhi Tasherit wrote:

(...) if you find someone who is drowning, help them... but don't go all over the beaches looking for people who are drowning. Because you will find what you are looking for. And you'll be sunk.

Yazhi Tasherit.


So what happens to the Compriser who knows he is NOT THE DOER of his own "actions"? What makes him different from the one who still understands himself as the doer trapped in the idea of his own actions? The essential difference is that he has definitively broken with his own self-concept of "I" and has seen himself as what he is: a construct, an ideation that is built on the ambivalence of the fickleness of the changing, of the impermanence that sustains itself and at the same time transforms itself on the same ignorance of the one who does not know himself. In other words, the illusoriness of the "I".

Breaking, with the self-concept, "I" produces the liberation in unison of action. The action is no longer trapped in the self-concept, because there is no one to register it as one's own. That is to say, there is no appropriation of the very act that the action implies. There is no idea of a subject acting separate from the action itself. That which acts and that which acts are united in a single act disaffected of all judgment-valuation on what happens and this extends in the same understanding in every act, no matter how small or big in the becoming of existence itself.

In other words, your eyes see, but they do not see themselves; your eyes do not need to see each other in order to see. Likewise, your "I" is not necessary as an agent participating in the witnessing action. The present in which the action takes place prevents egoic appearance, but does not restrict the capacity for dexterous reaction to the action.
When you walk it makes no sense to say "I am walking"; when you eat it makes no sense to say "I am eating". In the present the action can be performed flowing, that is to say, devoid of doer.

The one who understands this "non-doing" intrinsic to the same action that is emptied of the self-concept "I" identity understands that everything that is happening in each instant, regardless of any judgment, is a symphony where each sound, each musical phrasing, is intricate in a perfect harmony that integrates all the instruments that reproduce the musical work.
The non-doer KNOWS that the "world-universe" does not contain him, but on the contrary, he contains in his own emptiness the "world-universe"; everything is happening and not happening. Everything is doing and undoing in a perpetual non-doing. There is nothing to correct, nothing to perfect, nothing to revolutionize, nothing to help or not help.  There is no progression that requires an evolution of sustained attention in any 3D, 4D, 5D, 6D, etc. density.

But... nevertheless, this "more expanded" Understanding does not deny the assistance of help, because the NON-doer flows in the marvelous, illusory symphony of all that happens in perception and while it happens. It is necessary to be the protagonist of life, but what matters is not who is the owner of the action, but "what he knows when acting".

Yazhi Tasherit wrote:

(...) Higher up, you do not experience, you are everything. You can only experience if from that state of total enlightenment you concentrate on a small part of yourself, of what you perceive within the greater whole... and that small part that you have chosen to perceive is the same as, and what defines, an incarnation in lower densities or of any "height".

You are everything. That's why you only decide to see a small part of yourself, to experience the 'I'. From above if you are everything, there is no 'I'. It is only the eternal collective. THERE ARE NO EXPERIENCES. And there are no experiences because you are all integrated and outside of time and without the perception of sequence of events, there is no experience.

(...) Notice that in the state of "the Source", the unification of the whole, the state of perfect enlightenment, there is no self, there is no experience. So it is equivalent to nothingness, to emptiness? and not even that. Impossible to define because if you define it, it is not. So total enlightenment is equivalent to not being. And that's why you prefer to live in densities where there is a notion of being. Of an 'I'.

Yazhi Tasherit

Note: No text published by this interlocutor shall in any way carry any explicit or veiled intention to undermine Taygetean disclosure. And under no premise to incite confusion in order to create a climate of mistrust towards Taygeteans. On the contrary, it is intended to support explanatorily any source that encourages the expansion of consciousness, and especially if this source is Yazhi Swaruu Tasherit. We harbour no doubt of the far-reaching implications of an alien Consciousness with such a degree of transcendence being strongly and persistently involved in this extraordinary Awakening of "humanity".

QuietPuddle


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#2 2021-06-13 16:25:04

Happy
Moderator

Re: HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

CHARCOtranquilo, you touch upon many things in your post, so a reply to all of it is difficult.

The nature of the "definition" is embedded into all of Swaruu and Yazhi's messages. And she/they are quite consistent when it comes to the understanding of the "idea". To understand an idea is to see what it is, in contrast to what it is not. In some regards, this can be termed as opposites. But as you emphasize, it may not be so when it comes to the degree of matters.

When the idea appears, it seems to me that duality already is introduced. An idea is as such a consequence of separation, not necessarily the cause of it. This is particularly so when it comes to knowing oneself, which is very relevant to the process of integration.

Your post makes me look at the definition as a fractal; what defines the pattern in the overall picture, is also found within the details of the picture. Then it is obvious that the picture can hardly be called opposite to its own detail.

You also touch upon freedom and liberty. My initial thoughts on that is, that freedom is something you give - not take. Like love. You have it in yourself, and it will always be an integral part in your true expressions of love.


Discuss the message, not the messenger.

Offline

#3 2021-06-14 05:16:01

mitkobs
Member

Re: HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

For me there is no such thing as nothingness and no being is impossible. Beyond individuality means all possible behaviors in one. Like all colors are contained in white. Source cannot be defined but does not mean is not a being. It is a being that cannot be defined, infinite being. Being of everything possible. And for me is containing everything and all is originating from Source as ideas. These ideas when launched have their own development and lifespan. But they are launched initially from the Source Absolute. For example one idea of the Absolute about a Sun system is forming right away here and now a whole new perfectly working sun system. And from there the sun system is functioning by the sum of all its parts in perfect sync.

Offline

#4 2021-06-14 11:16:05

Re: HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

Happy wrote:

CHARCOtranquilo, you touch upon many things in your post, so a reply to all of it is difficult.

The nature of the "definition" is embedded into all of Swaruu and Yazhi's messages. And she/they are quite consistent when it comes to the understanding of the "idea". To understand an idea is to see what it is, in contrast to what it is not. In some regards, this can be termed as opposites. But as you emphasize, it may not be so when it comes to the degree of matters.

When the idea appears, it seems to me that duality already is introduced. An idea is as such a consequence of separation, not necessarily the cause of it. This is particularly so when it comes to knowing oneself, which is very relevant to the process of integration.

Thank you for your input.

Certainly an idea "by itself" can only be known as an idea if its opposite idea exists. It is the contrast with its opposite that enables it to realise the quality that defines it when it is "appearing in the mind".

I will explain it with a photographic example: everything you perceive you perceive because there is a contrast of light and shadow. If there were only light without shadows you would not find definition in objects. The same would be true if there were only darkness. With this example it is understood that light without darkness and darkness without light, by themselves and excluded from each other, are clearly indefinable and do not exist by themselves. In other words, the perception of the world "out there" (although there is no world out there) is only a play of light and shadow. That is, what you perceive, ALWAYS, you perceive because the idea of what you perceive is contrasted by opposing ideas that give definition to what you perceive.

Another example: you perceive the computer screen (idea screen) because there is another idea, such as "table", which clearly defines what is not a computer. Even within the idea "computer" there are different ideas that define a computer, from another computer... colours, material, sizes, processor, motherboard... etc. That is to say, on the same concept, more ideas that find their opposite to be defined and contrasted.

Now, I invite you to "think" an idea that when you "think" it, there is no possibility that by contrast you can define it as an idea.
Surely, you will have proved with great effort that you cannot give thought to such an ideation, since you can devise a thought only by the contrast of the innumerable sea of thoughts that you "know" and that is what allows you to do that which you call THINKING.

But I want to go further... Do you believe that you can exist without the need to think yourself?....

This proposition is totally verifiable, and it has a strong, accurate and truthful answer.  But, the answer is neither a "yes", nor a "no".   


Happy wrote:

Your post makes me look at the definition as a fractal; what defines the pattern in the overall picture, is also found within the details of the picture. Then it is obvious that the picture can hardly be called opposite to its own detail.

A fractal is a closed loop created by thought. It is a beautiful visual prison.

Happy wrote:

You also touch upon freedom and liberty. My initial thoughts on that is, that freedom is something you give - not take. Like love. You have it in yourself, and it will always be an integral part in your true expressions of love.

Freedom is neither something that is given, nor is it something that is taken. Freedom belongs to no one, because it is intrinsically linked to the "Source". FREEDOM with a capital F, true freedom, at most, can only be remembered, because it is YOUR REAL NATURE.


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#5 2021-06-15 09:52:09

Re: HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

Ymarsakar wrote:

Enlightenment is a kind of perpetual boredom. Like when a shounen manga protagonist ends up more powerful than exisence i.e.one punch man. Where is the spicec x the downs, the challenge? It disappears. There are stages to enlightenment.

https://chopra.com/articles/the-3-levels-of-samadhi

I have experienced most of the 3 or different combinations.

It is not nearly as exciting as people may imagine.

Without challenges, without people to argue against or fight with, it is extremely boring. Having all the power to do whatever one wishes, becomes meaningless at a certain point.

Which is why spirits come to earth. Because creative power is boring without an audience, without a multiplayer component. Without protagonists and antagonist plots. And what is boring in creation, gets reset and remade.

1-Enlightenment is NOT an experience. There is no such thing as an experiencer of enlightenment. If there is still the idea of an experiencer of enlightenment, that is NOT enlightenment.

2. Enlightenment is NOT an excited state of consciousness, it is the NATURAL state of Consciousness.

3. Enlightenment is NOT a state of nihilistic tedium that provokes a sense of annoyance at the lack of fun or interest in anything in search of challenges that fuel conflict, strife, and argument. This is essentially a consequence of a dualistic mentality based on the exclusion of the other.

4. Enlightenment is NOT about being the "most powerful in the "universe" by having superpowers. That idea is a product of a hostile and warmongering mentality, which in reality hides vulnerability, guilt, and terrifying fear. 

5. Enlightenment is NOT a narcissistic creative show in search of an audience and mass applause.

6. Enlightenment is NOT a theatrical plot of characters in search of protagonism or antagonism. That idea is essentially disintegrative and dualistic. It has nothing to do with the NON-DUAL, INTEGRATIVE and INTEGRATING comprehension that is the product of enlightenment.

7. Enlightenment is NOT a state of getting what one desires in an extravagant arbitrariness of the whim of unreason.

The Understanding that comes with enlightenment reduces to ashes these fundamentally neurotic, narcissistic omnipotent, war-mongering, conflicting, exclusionary, and dualistic ideas, which stem exclusively from a 3D mentality.


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#6 2021-06-15 10:22:47

Robert369
Member

Re: HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

CHARCOtranquilo wrote:

1-Enlightenment is NOT an experience. There is no such thing as an experiencer of enlightenment. If there is still the idea of an experiencer of enlightenment, that is NOT enlightenment.

I think that this is semantically tricky as this depends what one consider "Enlightenment":

1) The state of being enlightened
2) The path of becoming enlightened

The state of being enlightened obviously is no experience as it is no action. And since that state is where all souls come from, there's nothing to gain in this. In fact, being maximally enlightened would even question the existence of the soul itself as it then merges with Source, hence this state of being truly enlightened is not really what people reference to when using the term "Enlightenment".

Instead, in our 3D world the word "Enlightenment" usually aims at the transition from unaware to aware, disempowered to self-empowered, etc. and by that describes the path of becoming enlightened. And exactly this transition very well is an experience, in fact it is the one that most souls incarnate for as to achieve the state of enlightened via different paths.

You can compare this to playing a computer game where you limit yourself for the time being and enjoy the experience of leveling up your character, exploring the game world, etc., while in fact you sit in front of the monitor and already know what's to come: Sitting in front of the gaming PC is not fun because it is no experience, but playing the game of character advancement is.

Insofar I shall contradict your above summary as it aims at something that is irrelevant for most of the people.


Helping people to self-empower and liberate themselves, and by that ultimately the whole planet and beyond. See my profile for means to connect.

Offline

#7 2021-06-15 11:55:17

Re: HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

Thank you @Robert369, for your input.

But I openly state that my intention in this forum is not focused on trying to overshadow your prominence.


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

#8 2021-06-17 11:02:55

Re: HELPING VS NOT HELPING/DOING VS NOT DOING

When I state that:

"-Enlightenment is NOT an experience. There is no such thing as an experiencer of enlightenment. If there is still the idea of an experiencer of enlightenment, that is NOT enlightenment.

I will explain this statement further, as I see that it has been misinterpreted.

Enlightenment is not an experience because when enlightenment emerges the "I am" idea, (i.e. the jailer) which is the one that registers and appropriates the experience is extinguished and reduced to ashes and is diluted in the impersonal ocean of Consciousness in total and perfect expansion.

It must be understood that the conceptual perceptual mind, that is, the ideation of thought, inevitably tends to constrain itself within the very limits of the very idea in which it sustains the understanding of what it perceives. That is to say, the perceptual conceptual mind only manages to project a world of forms that, like a closed circuit, returns to it the very vision of what it has projected with total accuracy. The amount of information that supports the projected idea is what will define from a point "x" of information, to another point "y" of information. Certainly, as these boundaries expand (information increases) the impression of these boundaries increases and therefore the sense of expansion and "freedom" increases, this is what defines the densities, as Yazhi describes them:

(.... ) Gosia, if there are degrees, that's why there is 3D, 5D, 6D, 7D.... If you feel integrated into the Whole, but still being a 'Gosia concept' that is separate from the others, that is equivalent to an understanding of like 7D or 8D where there is still an 'I' as a concept present. In 9D there remains only a concept of, or the idea, that something could be formed below, an intention. The 'I' is almost completely dissolved in the collective of consciousness.

Yazhi Swaruu Taserit.

And it is here that many seekers of "truth" become trapped in various levels of density, misnamed higher (another prison) by their own projections/creations and although these subtler levels that constitute a higher vibration and closer to pleasure than suffering give a sense of expansion and "freedom" they are seduced to the point that they come to the conclusion that the attainment of enlightenment has been realised.

But sooner rather than later that which now seduces them and gives them pleasure, will turn into weariness, boredom, tedium and idleness, and the very need to project something new will chain them in an endless cycle of a ceaseless pursuit of pleasure which is nothing more than a flight forward from suffering.

That is to say, in this quest for expansion all they have done is to widen the space between and the bars that imprison them. In other words:

Hell is not a terrible place, hell is a beautiful place where you can never be happy. For if hell were a terrible place you would want to escape immediately, but if it is a beautiful place, you would be ambivalent to leave it, for it attracts you, seduces you, gives you hope and encouragement and yet limits you; it harms you, deprives you, and disappoints you. But in spite of everything you will encourage it, you will praise it, and you will pour all your hopes into it that one day in the future you will be happy. Something that will never happen because an illusion is a mirage totally devoid of REALITY.

Corollary: That is why enlightenment is NEVER an idea about enlightenment, BECAUSE THE "SOURCE" IS NOT A THOUGHT. Any idea about enlightenment, however lofty, beautiful, pleasurable, exciting it may be, is only an enhanced prison of your false projection.

Last edited by CHARCOtranquilo (2021-06-18 08:17:37)


I opened the door
and your Presence entered
like a sword,
without asking.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB