The realization that I am far more capable than I realize. What is that? A realization of higher dimension, intuition that transcends realizations of linguistical mind. Clearly, if this holds true—which I believe to be the case—I am identified with the wrong self, a self of language, confined in a labyrinth of narrow vistas.
I felt drained of energy. Why? I tried writing it down. One word followed another, disorderly, disconnected. Then something started to emerge, right in front of my eyes. The words organized themselves. Meaningful sentences came up. A thought. Order out of chaos. A universe out of nothing. I felt in control. Energized. Why?
I felt weak when I lost the control, I felt strong when the illusion of control was regained. But clearly, no control was required for the order to appear.What if, then, no order was lost in the first place. What if, it was just my perception that changed. Why did I blame myself for the lack of recognizable pattern? Why did I credit myself for the pattern that emerged? It seems the perception of control goes hand in hand with the perception of myself. The pain. The pleasure.
All sentient beings in all worlds… I’ve never understood why the plural. Until I realized that the world is but my conditioning. Different conditioning, different world. Hence the multitude of worlds. Our ability to meet and communicate, to share a reality, already tells us that we are, in a sense, soulmates.
It would seem queer, not to say ridiculous, to think that the contemplating, conscious mind that alone reflects the becoming of the world should have made its appearance only at some time in the course of this “becoming”.
Nothing is ever created.
More and more is being remembered.
It’s not your lack of knowledge but your conviction that makes you just another annoying nutcase on the Internet. There needs to a more non-violent way of bringing about your point of view; a way that integrates authentic learning with your self-expression.
And as always, the “you” I’m talking to and about is the yours truly.
Sanity would be too much to ask for, but at least I know I’m insane.
The world is a monologue of God. I am a mere sentence in His discourse, a shout of grief; an amusing one-liner; a silent pause between the words, perhaps.
There are two forces in the world, the law of nature and chance. I have often pondered that should there be free will, it would have to somehow emerge from the latter. But what if it’s really the other way round. What if predeterminancy is not something to fight against but something that I… am.
So that what we conceive as the law of nature is really my will; the nature, not something apart from me but synonymous to what I really am; and chance, not my will in some obscure camouflage but the creative force that blindly generates the world in response to my true nature, the Will, the Law.
It just occurred to me that if consciousness is similarity of this moment with other moments, then it is, in a specific sense, an emergent phenomenon.
Simply because religious experience is apprehended in an “interior” fashion does not mean it is merely private knowledge, any more than the fact that mathematics and logic are seen inwardly, by the mind’s eye, makes them merely private fantasies without public import. Mathematical knowledge is public knowledge to all equally trained mathematicians; just so, contemplative knowledge is public knowledge to all equally trained contemplatives.
Control means working against the odds. The odds would be, always, towards disorder. But we know that the flesh fights the entropy of the matter and that the mind fights the entropy of the flesh. For a short moment we call life, it is, as if statistics didn’t count.
There is matter. And there are laws of matter. That’s the materialistic view of the world.
But let us assume that instead of eternal laws the universe is actually governed by what is best described as habits—and not just governed by, but also made of. Thus, instead of duality of matter and law there would be just habits, habits of habits.
Question. You have two apples. You give away three. Then you get two more. How many apples you end up with?
Well, obviously, this does not make sense at all. You cannot give away three apples if you only have two. But if we ignored the meaning of having apples we could calculate the answer. The answer is one apple.
An electron can be at two places at the same time. This appears strange only if we consider space as something more fundamental than similarity. If we do that we have it upside down. Without similarity there wouldn’t be space in the first place! Distance, as an unit of space, is mere a version of similarity.