Topic: Living in the Now

[Quantum Shaman]

Impermanence. That is Buddha's cornerstone. No matter how long we look into any version of the future, no how deeply we look into 'Now', we still reach a point where everything drops away - everything.

I like your stories Zam, it brings out your point. Regret and the pain of loss are such a big thing these days - everyone wants 'closure' which usually means someone has to be convicted in court! Madness! If we cherish what we have now, we can afford to let go. But I know many who know this intellectually, but not emotionally - that is the difficult part.

And you are right, we can celebrate our pain, but that is a bit advanced me thinks... 

I should add I usually don't say much on the 'Now' issue, as I see 'Now' as a journey - takes a long time to come to where Now really is, and I for one haven't got there yet. But I'm using every tool I know to reach it.

The whole idea of "impermanence" as Buddha's cornerstone also translates over into Toltec's idea of "we are beings who are going to die."  Just something I've always found to be an interesting parallel. 

There's an aspect of quantum that deals with the idea of time as a hologram - and in that paradigm, it can be seen that perhaps this "impermanence" is only a matter of our humanform perceptions.  Within the actuality of the hologram, everything that has ever existed will ALWAYS exist at the level of molecular "memory".  I was reading another thread this morning here at Soma about "memory", as recalling a question asked by Serafina a few days ago about the question of memory as it relates to recapitulation, and it just seems to indicate a lot of different "threads" coming together.

The cool thing about the quantum paradigm of "time as a hologram" is that on many  levels it actualy speaks to the idea that we can actually access the hologram directly, using the tool of perceptual awareness. Hard to put into words, but it's rather like what the toltecs call "a shift of the assemblage point", which allows the seer/seeker to directly interface with any aspect of him/herself at any point in "time".

My own theories related to this have to do with the double being the vessel which carries our awareness not only beyond our own impermanence, but potentially beyond the hologram itself.  Our bodies may indeed be beings who are going to die, but an evolving self (higher self, double, dreaming body) gives us the ability to transcend our impermanence and transport our awareness as a cohesive totality beyond the "limits" we perceive from our humanform perspective.

Oy... words get in the way, of course.    

One of the first "downloads" I received through gnosis (silent knowing) was, "You humans have no concept of the nature of time."

I've been pondering that one for years... and can only nod in agreement.  Time is a funny fellow, probably wearing a jester suit, who's having a good laugh at it all. 

[erik]

Good post! Just associatively brings to my mind one of the great dreams I've had - I moved in huge dark space back in time alongside of one gigantic energy fibre. Once I  merged with it, I was back in AD 33. Tricky thing - time.

[daphne]

The cool thing about the quantum paradigm of "time as a hologram" is that on many  levels it actualy speaks to the idea that we can actually access the hologram directly, using the tool of perceptual awareness. Hard to put into words, but it's rather like what the toltecs call "a shift of the assemblage point", which allows the seer/seeker to directly interface with any aspect of him/herself at any point in "time".

Love this bit about "time as a hologram"! I see the "assemblage point" as sort of like the lazer's counterpart in physical holograms; and the 'shift' the 'angle'.

I sometimes wonder at the inventions and discoveries of humans - they seem to parallel so much of the 'abstract'. Or is it our way of bringing out into manifestation that which can show us the way?  Sort of like a loop..

My own theories related to this have to do with the double being the vessel which carries our awareness not only beyond our own impermanence, but potentially beyond the hologram itself.  Our bodies may indeed be beings who are going to die, but an evolving self (higher self, double, dreaming body) gives us the ability to transcend our impermanence and transport our awareness as a cohesive totality beyond the "limits" we perceive from our humanform perspective.

Oy... words get in the way, of course.      

Nope!! Your words are greatly fine!!

One of the first "downloads" I received through gnosis (silent knowing) was, "You humans have no concept of the nature of time."

I've been pondering that one for years... and can only nod in agreement.  Time is a funny fellow, probably wearing a jester suit, who's having a good laugh at it all. 

"time" is an amazing thing.. somehow it always comes down to that; we have no concept of the nature of time.  I wonder if it is possible to have so in our 'humanform' perception? Something seems to get lost in the translation..

[Michael]

Yes Della, you make a good point there.

It brings to mind something tho, about manifesting - if we cling to the desire for what we are seeking to manifest, then we are harbouring fear, and it is the fear that we manifest, thus sabotaging our intent. Thus we are much more successful in manifesting when we can let go first.

There is some law somewhere that we can only retain what we have let go. Like those knots that we finally throw down in frustration, only to see them unravel with ease as they fall.

Julie struggled for a long time in her theses to neatly explain Maya (till she finally gave up that hope), and for some time used the word impermanence, meaning everything changes - not that things aren't permanent in their existence within Maya, but that they are not permanent in our desire to see them stay the way we want.

Permanence, is a quality we strive to find. To cling to something we can rely on - which eventually leads us into our deepest core of silence, as if in absence we find certitude. Whereas energy in its solid and fluid forms, 'exists'. always 'exists', yet is constantly changing. a paradox, but one we are called to resolve as beings within.

The relationship between Brahman (the unknowable) and Maya (manifestation) has been debated and related over thousands of years in India - which is real? Buddhism, which influenced adviata and Shankara, stand on one end, claiming that all manifestation is illusion. While Bhakti, devotion, stands nearer the other end, pure Materialiasm (which also existed in India). Devotion requires an 'object', thus they relate that Maya is not illusion, and that permanence can be found in God. Bhakti devoties often express their joy and love of the world, and see in that, and in it's very shifting nature, a truth to cling to, in fact, the Godhead itself, in everything.

But Hinduism has another word, or concept, Vijnana. It works this way, first we live in the ignorance that our world and relationships are real, and when they are taken away we suffer - the more we cling the more we suffer. Then we get wisdom, and let go, realising the impermanence of our attachments. On the deepest level, we reject all, and enter into absolute essence - they call that Jnana. (actually Nirvikalpa Samadhi.) Nothing remains - all is rejected, even ourselves. But then, we come back (like those who return from Keter) and only then are we able to play in Maya - to access the full range of existence, past present and future. We are called Vijnani.

Well, that's just a little rave at 4am in the morning - good night irene...

[erismoksha]

The whole idea of "impermanence" as Buddha's cornerstone also translates over into Toltec's idea of "we are beings who are going to die."  Just something I've always found to be an interesting parallel. 

There's an aspect of quantum that deals with the idea of time as a hologram - and in that paradigm, it can be seen that perhaps this "impermanence" is only a matter of our humanform perceptions.  Within the actuality of the hologram, everything that has ever existed will ALWAYS exist at the level of molecular "memory".  I was reading another thread this morning here at Soma about "memory", as recalling a question asked by Serafina a few days ago about the question of memory as it relates to recapitulation, and it just seems to indicate a lot of different "threads" coming together.

Della, that's been my understanding on things for many years now. The thing was when I went through my big boom phase, got a glimpse of the field/eagle, and how time is a play on the mind itself, it made those possibilities open many doors, which then I was able to understand 'why' we can gain insight into the future, or potential futures really, or even work energetically with our pasts, do whatever retrievals of energy that we must. There'd be no reason or bother to do recap work (course I may debate on the extensiveness of this at times), if there wasn't the ability to retrieve that energy or aspects of us which can get stuck in time, and realign things to a different point on the 'map.' I do view time as a map but not a linear map, flat and one-dimensional. I did view it that way, until that door swung open for me, and then, many other things fell into place, and suddenly made 'sense.' Though in the physical and those trapped by the whole matter manifestation, fixed in that line of thought, no, it wouldnt make sense.

The cool thing about the quantum paradigm of "time as a hologram" is that on many  levels it actualy speaks to the idea that we can actually access the hologram directly, using the tool of perceptual awareness. Hard to put into words, but it's rather like what the toltecs call "a shift of the assemblage point", which allows the seer/seeker to directly interface with any aspect of him/herself at any point in "time".

Yep, and the more you shift the more you can see so many different dimensions, and even possibilities of who we're becoming. Also, it makes something like free-will much more possible to fathom...

My own theories related to this have to do with the double being the vessel which carries our awareness not only beyond our own impermanence, but potentially beyond the hologram itself.  Our bodies may indeed be beings who are going to die, but an evolving self (higher self, double, dreaming body) gives us the ability to transcend our impermanence and transport our awareness as a cohesive totality beyond the "limits" we perceive from our humanform perspective.

I think too, the more we're in tune with that aspect as well, will be able to be the perfect 'guide' through that journey. However, of course we still have to do a lot of work, to be able to give that in us the power to be able to make the journey, cause the more out of alignment we are with, the more even the double can get 'stuck' and we may not be able to have the line of communication with.

Oy... words get in the way, of course.    

One of the first "downloads" I received through gnosis (silent knowing) was, "You humans have no concept of the nature of time."

I've been pondering that one for years... and can only nod in agreement.  Time is a funny fellow, probably wearing a jester suit, who's having a good laugh at it all. 

I think its to try to keep everyone in line, and keep things simpler. But for those who can't accept the simpler, and want to be able to move about more freely.... be one step ahead... then we have to jester back with time

[Zamurito]

Hmm Zam.., you saying my wanting to know which part of your post is quoted and which part is your own stuff may result in my reading of said post being tainted with judgement?   

Nice experiment you mentioned in stalking yourself. Yes.. it does help should the need arise!   

Hi Daph,

missed your comments here yesterday. 

No, no, not accusing you at all.  I was accusing myself 

But of course I do have to ask, when you read something, are you strictly bound to the words or does the author of those words have an affect on your interpretation of what your reading?

I don't want to put this into a 'right' or 'wrong' scenerio either.  It's just something I've been working with.  Perhaps the words I used were a bit incorrect as well; the words such as 'tainted' 'judgement' etc., etc.  Maybe.....do we 'feel' words differently based on the author?

I dunno.....

I'm off to lala land   

z

[daphne]

But of course I do have to ask, when you read something, are you strictly bound to the words or does the author of those words have an affect on your interpretation of what your reading?

Hiya Zam,

For myself, the author does not have a personal effect on my reading, not as far as the content is concerned. I do "test" this now and then, just to make sure   

Was not always so, but I made a decision for it to be so, and so I watch myself very carefully. For me, what I read (or hear) either resonates or not. Sometimes when it doesn't, I check to see why, and often "stalk myself ruthlessly"   
Sometimes it just doesn't resonate; sometimes I find some block or other.

[Zamurito]

Hiya Zam,

For myself, the author does not have a personal effect on my reading, not as far as the content is concerned. I do "test" this now and then, just to make sure   

Was not always so, but I made a decision for it to be so, and so I watch myself very carefully. For me, what I read (or hear) either resonates or not. Sometimes when it doesn't, I check to see why, and often "stalk myself ruthlessly"   
Sometimes it just doesn't resonate; sometimes I find some block or other.

Sounds like we're in agreement.   

z

[nichi]

Interesting topic, whether or not the "artist" (or in this case, the writer) matters. I used to think no, that something could be viewed in isolation, without reference to who, what, where, when and why.

But then, I can't help but think, what force of energy comes through in a certain piece? Surely the artist's or writer's Intent is relevant? Which brings us back to knowing the identity of the artist/writer... and what his/her context was.

I think a case can be made either way.

[Zamurito]

Interesting topic, whether or not the "artist" (or in this case, the writer) matters. I used to think no, that something could be viewed in isolation, without reference to who, what, where, when and why.

But then, I can't help but think, what force of energy comes through in a certain piece? Surely the artist's or writer's Intent is relevant? Which brings us back to knowing the identity of the artist/writer... and what his/her context was.

I think a case can be made either way.

Either way...I'd agree with this as well.

I agreed with Daph, as what she wrote is very much how I read.

....but

One of the biggest stumbling blocks in 'written communication' is that it's usally one-way communication.  If one has the ability to contact the author and ask questions and such, it makes for better understanding.

Another stumbling block for me is just the fact Of written communication.  I do much better face to face.  If I can see you, how you talk, how you emphasise certain words or phrases, watch you body language, I can get a much better understanding of what it is you're trying to relate to me.  IMHO written words lack emotions, feelings and a host of other actions. 

...but

We're talking about written words, so...

Gurdjieff wrote a whole slew about this:  communication.  How each word has so many different meanings, etc., etc.  I could go and drag his words over here, but he'd just confirm what we already know:  communication, especially written communication is tough 

z

[nichi]

Ah yes! Then we are into the giftedness of the writer him/herself.
And here the question is, "What voice comes through, here?"

Which is why I'll always say, whether one agrees or disagrees with CC -- whether or not one has respect for him-the-man, he was superb at bringing us the voice of Don Juan. That was CC's gift, however he accomplished that! (just for example)

[nichi]

Where you're saying you get a lot from body language, I get a lot from Voice ... the hearing.

Some writers just convey that sound better than others...
In the end, I'm a sucker for poetry, for this reason.

There are some writers, like M, (in my reception, anyway) whose Voice is quite palpable upon reading. I have a theory that it's a function of how well one is able to access spirit...

[Michael]

i am hearing: does the identity of the author influence the reading or reception of the material?

that is one issue,

but i see it differently:
does the material, the content, hide or reveal the author?

in the first case we have a paradigm where the 'knowledge' exists in the content, the ideas being discussed. This is the focus of the intellectual centre. This is the focus of a person who is fascinated by the 'idea', and believing that ideas hold the real value.

in the second case we have the paradigm where the 'knowledge' exists in the author, the person behind the text. This is the focus of the intuition centre. This is the focus of a person who is interested in that indefinable quality within another - not their words or thoughts, but their essence. Believing that the person holds the real value, and what they express is only a conduit to that value, and of little importance in itself.

this reminds me of the story DJ told of the market place - a young hungry man and an old mysterious man. you can read the story - of how a magical deer appeared etc. But the point in the end was that the young man destroyed the food, not realising the food was also power. Why?

Because it had been picked in the market place by a person of power - this is something you know if you have chosen food yourself, as a person of knowledge, looking for power in the items one selects.

Thus i would say, I am interested in the ideas, only as they lead to the author, who has the power, or not. When people come to this forum, I am interested in this extraordinary event, that out of the millions of people in the world, you come here. That is the incredible thing - so who are you?

i have read these ideas over and over for many years, and now i seek to see one of two things. How have you, whoever is the reader of these words, absorbed and utilised these ideas in your own life? Thus I look at the words in how they lead me to either the real person or a facsimile of who the person thinks they should be.

then, if i am lucky, i seek who the person is, and what is their juice, in that they have chosen some ideas, out of the whole available range available, to bring forth a thread of light via those ideas. not just how they have been digested, but how that person has been able to turn around and use those thoughts with intent and purpose - that is, as a thread of their own light. that is rare.

so for me it is not a question of who wrote what, but who you are. and if i see you are a person who is awake, then i see power in the food also, and feast with glee, as it nourishes me on all three levels.

[Zamurito]

Michael,

Great post.

Your reply hit the nail on the head; exactly what I was attempting to bring forth

z

[Jahn]

so for me it is not a question of who wrote what, but who you are. and if i see you are a person who is awake, then i see power in the food also, and feast with glee, as it nourishes me on all three levels.

Do I hear the echoes of the Eagle?
 

Thoughts for food. Well here is another one.

After some time in these forums and at the Toltec school I have found out that there are two kind of people that have their own characteristics how well this form of written connection suits them. Zam prefer the face to face approach and that is wise because in my classification system he belongs to the heart group or emotional group*- which are labels I can expand on some other day. While the other group belong to the more mental group where this communication without gestures, intonation etc is not that important.

For me it is important to find the voice behind the words. Especially when I read books. When I find the voice I also find the flow in what is written. Many here are quite skilful to present posts with a good flow. And for me it is many different voices that I hear.

* To a great extent defined by this definition from Zam:
"how you talk, how you emphasise certain words or phrases, watch you body language, I can get a much better understanding of what it is you're trying to relate to me.  IMHO written words lack emotions, feelings"