If I look back in ten years, will I consider this present time as NOT 'spiritual' in contrast?

I've always been on a spiritual path, and at the same time, I've always been off of one.

It's a matter of degree I suppose.

Am I awake?

I think I was 25 or 30 when I began recognizing the value in spiritual matters and formally studying with a greater intensity.  That doesn't mean I was more 'spiritual' as a consequence, just that I became more aware of the varied disciplines, philosophies, etc at this time.

I can't see the rest of the question to really hit it and don't feel like going back to check it out so this will have to do for now!  haha

Interersting reflection nonetheless.

clyde

is it not
my sweet brethren
to push now
into today?

and isn't this beauty incarnante?  For us all

;-)

love and peace and joy.

But....a WHOLE LOT OF STRUGGLE AND FIGHTING FOR WHAT WE HOLD DEAR.

Today...

tomorrow...

and in any other time we might imagine...

I am here, and a part of our collective tapestry.

and so are you

things are always the same when we make them the same.  Not being open to the difference and change keeps things boring.  Hmm...doesn't it seem like if we are to experience happiness itself, things must become new, inviting, exciting, not TOO threatening?  Not boring.  Our EYES must themselves be made clean daily to take it all in as it all changes. 

Don't expect a thing dammit!!!!! It IS all new.  More ideas about observation and balancing consciousness.

So....along with this grand 'inner' search, there remains an outward one.  Wow...spirituality on the outside.  Go figure.  New book title to set the tone, 'Looking Without' (of course, ultimately, we must have a non dual balance or simultaneous awareness...this is the catch of the day, no?).

from my loving space...

clyde

it's only through observation that the subtext can be seen.  That creates an implicit neccessitation to NOT reflect on BEING observed. BE as you ARE and watch as things are (but quite enough to not distrub the environment).  As the world about us, in REAL time, swirls about, we TAKE IN, that world (the input).  And with a grander input, without the interference and over preoccupation in PRESENTATION, we can then attend to, give attention to, the world about us--the happenings and occurances outside of us. 

YES, of course there is, an interplay.  And this, as mentioned above, depends upon OUR disturbance or interaction within that particular environment.  We can be harmonious or distruptive.  Either way, there will be a reaction.  As a matter of fact, we are actually quite 'invisible' if quiet enough.  We absorb ourselves in our preoccupations without disturbance. By that I mean, most of us ARE consumed by either our present goals, occupations, or objectives and therefore not very present with the world about us.  In very general case, we are OBSESSED with our present personal occupations (objectives included). 

Consciousness has only so much space.  Depends on how we choose to divide and emphacize it.  And that is the catch.  What arises, arises naturally, however WE ourselves obscure the fullest spectical of the observed through a general observation and preoccupation with the self (self consciousness or more loosely translated as 'ego').

So it becomes a matter of what part of now we tune to.  The ego generally causes an over fixation directly at ourselves rather than allowing the full spectrum of what is outside of us to enter.  Without input, the output is severely hampered and the interplay dead in the water.  And it is that interplay that makes the stuff of life itself--in my humble estimation today (grossly translated as 'lila'--'lila' is it in terms of 'the meaning of life'.  All meaning is not a 'picture', an 'ideal' or an 'object', but a MOTION.  NOT a snapshot, BUT full, 3d, 4d, 5d, FULL color MOTION picture...I.E., don't get hung up on 'identity' as the self cause we are action in motion rather than snapshots.  Change)

It's a matter of attention--to reiterate the last paragraph.  A matter of attention and BALANCE of attention.  We must of course become acutely aware of the realms themselves, and that is the beginning.  As we become more acutely aware of these simple realms, the balance can be made.  Consciousness itself must expand.  Preoccupations in the minute dismissed in the flow.  There is experience and there is examination.  While examining, we miss experience.  With too much experience, we miss the detail.  Balance in being and examination.

It's all bout balance, right?!  Just want to know who out there has given in-depth-thought to this hackneyed aphorism of 'balance'. 

Concepts, concepts, concepts.  Does anyone else have other models to share?  The concepts themselves require accurate represenations.  Models that bring us close to the reality of the experience.  The best models are complex AND simple. Meaning, as most direct, succinct, full, and simple as possible.  Elegant.  Theories of the human realm.

Don't be put off by my ASSertions...They are there as much to enjoy and learn from as they are to correct. 

Or just to inspire....

over and out 

subtext is NOT innate.  Doesn't come completely naturally.  There is a 'labeling' and articulation that must come with it.  It is words and beyond words.

My point is, that the subtextual environment requires great work and attention to develop and sustain.  Why meditation is such the wonder--in my present estimation.  While we nurse the surface environment we must also continue to to develop the 'under' world.  The world beneath the world.  This is NOT, by ANY stretch of the imagination, 'new age'...Just is what is.

This can be framed as the 'abstract' realm.  what IS, however, 'abstract', is completely relative.  VERY concrete in all its entirity.  Everything functional is concrete, just more or less subtle. The subtle realm is still concrete.  No?

today has been a beautiful day of insight, vision, peace, and happiness.


yesterday was complete trash.  backwards bliss!!!! ;-)

out

what is enlightenment?

anyhow, that is MY answer, TODAY, as to that puzzlement and to the question of my title.

subtext, subtext, subtext.  And these come in domains and various flavours.  All textual, but not all in the direct 'reading' in the ordinary sense.  A vision beyond vision in experience and not overly distracted by primary vision (it is the primary vision, the ordinary vision, that continues to get in our way and distract.  A reading beyond what is laid forth.  Does that make sense?  I could very easily elaborate if you wish.  It makes great sense to me....perhaps not to others. Most cases, for me, it's about poignancy.  My 'language' is not yours and I hope you might wish to see what I see.


STILL subscribing to my "powerful" blog still.  Bless you.

One more penny...it is all about a grand struggle against what we see laid out in front of us....A sort of 'sensory confusion of consciousness' if you will (if consciousness be construed as awareness--the 'awareness' we take as awareness) against what we learn to be true.  Sorry if the idea of 'truth' threw you, but again, that takes elaboration as well.

Today I have light and for that I am grateful.  I am nothing without light (amid my darkness).

compostion is the most difficult of expressions in communication I'm finding.  So....all apologies for obscurity or even over simplicity.

two cents

out

Been spending a lot of time lately on the idea of the ego, the mechanics, causes, and properties of it (sort of funny since it is subconsciously always there.  But more consciously I mean).  This thing we have labeled the ego.  Among all the trash that inhibits our mind, the greatest limiter, and grand trash creator seems to be a regular self consciousness or awareness in either adding to, or subtracting from this image of self.  Defending it, refining it, etc.

So...we've all probably been on the road of adding to the self and tired to some degree with this preoccupation.  Identifications with this, that or the other to give us a sense of substance, value, or meaning.

Just one idea on the ego that may or may not be of some use to you all.  Something that can tame the reflexiveness of consciousness toward this image.  Basic dignity.  Something that can never be taken from us.  we can be shamed by others or even shame ourselves, but it's always there.  Especially if we are striving toward maintaining that dignity rather than careflessly or selfishly living.  We may stumble, fumble or fall and never measure up in the eyes of some....We may be criticized by others or ourselves, scorned, treated unfairly, treated with disdain, miss an appointment, or miss a step, but we always have our basic dignity.  Always.  It's our inherent right and noone can take it from us but ourselves.  We are all very, very precious and valuable...and that's it.  Period..  The mistake that's made is that society simply cannot honor this well enough to nurture this understanding.  From the day we are born. 

So I wonder if we sometimes get too caught up in the misteps to relax.  To forgive our inherent imperfects and limitations. To allow this vigilant awareness of the concern toward the self to abate.  And also in the misteps of others rather than seeing the negative qualities or misteps, but to instead honor the basic dignity inherent in us all.  This may be one thought to help (along with other approaches) to just stop the charade and honor the intrinsic nature and beauty in us all that requires no defense and no explanation.

the defense rests ;-)


On the other hand...and simultaneously

I believe critique is invaluable.  In spreading joy and love and affection, we often choose to not ADD, correct, or question.  Often it really does have NOTHING to do with being right, which a common idea.  It has to do with the assembly of understanding and wisdom.

Clearly, then, we should both love and honor basic dignity, as a regular and consistent presense, while also engaging in meaningful dialogue.  These ARE two powerful opposing forces.

So it is tricky

 

by seeing it