Sooner or Later We All Must Completely Surrender to Reality

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm on a life long quest to make reality surrender to me, and do what I want.

LOL! Good luck with that!

Well, at least you recognize it will just be life-long, since at the end reality will NOT be the one doing the surrendering!

It is thought which imagines an 'end'.
If it is not reality which surrenders then there must be an assumption that there is something other.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Hi Itsnowagain ...

Perhaps if the word surrender was replaced with the word acceptance

Sometimes we have to accept we do not know certain things
Why be troubled by that we do not understand ...

I think when we stop wanting/striving to know and are prepared to accept what is presented to us ... we will understand better and be more content ...

Just my thoughts

originally posted by: artistpoet


Perhaps if the word surrender was replaced with the word acceptance

There is just reality - reality is not two. Reality is what is happening.
The assumption that there is 'someone or something' who can surrender or accept IS the apparent division.

I think when we stop wanting/striving to know and are prepared to accept what is presented to us ... we will understand better and be more content ...

It is the seeking (wanting/striving) that produces the illusion that there is a separate seeker. Really there is just SEEKING. Seeking is not made of two things - it is an action. If seeking is happening then that is what is happening and that is reality.
When the seeking stops it will be realized that what is happening is simply just happening - the separate seeker will be nowhere to be found.

originally posted by: bb23108

I am not sure if the following is what you are speaking about partly because you are talking about blue pearls when there is only the one. Are you just pluralizing it in that sentence or do you see more than one blue spot?

Well, that's the tricky part. Sometimes I see one blue spot on the other side of the veil. Sometimes two, like eyes. But there was one time, when I was on the other side of the veil in my body of stars, that the two turned out to be two clusters of many pearls in concentric circles. And there was another time when I was taken inside a blue pearl, and inside was a flowing blue spirit of tremendous love and compassion. She put her hand on my cheek and showed me a vision of a male and a female in copulation.

So, I suspect that the one pearl is actually a cluster of many, or can become many and then one again, or is a kind of nested super-identity. It could be that every spirituality resurrected and ascended being becomes a blue pearl, which has a place in the nested over-arching identity, and can merge with it or separate from it depending on the task. Perhaps these are the sages.

Anyway, in the center of the Cosmic Mandala is the blue bindhu or blue pearl with a bright five-pointed star in its center.

This is the gateway we talked about earlier, and from what I can gather, in the Christian tradition, upon Jesus' death, he spiritually resurrected and ascended to this light and merged as this five-pointed star. Beyond this star is the Divine Light Above which Jesus called the Kingdom of God.

Also, various passages like "if thine eye be single", "being born to here from Above", the Morning Star, etc., in the Bible all point to this same esoteric process of seeing the inner light of the (morning) star, and being reborn in the Universal Light of God. Jesus' emphasis on Unity also is a characteristic of the Universal Light.

Also, Jesus initiated his disciples and seemingly Nicodemus, via his own capacity to transmit the spirit-light from above. This esoteric yoga is generally practiced with the help of a Spiritual Master due to various difficulties that can be encountered.

Upon his ascension, this merging with and as this passageway was Jesus' eternal gift to his followers, and ultimately to mankind, and also taught by the early disciples. This is why Jesus said that only through HIm could you enter the Kingdom, etc.

Of course, the official version of the ascension was not about this esoteric matter, and that version basically snuffed out this esoteric one.

However, the esoteric version of the ascension, and other passages in the Bible, are aligned to the inner structures of the body-mind - and for this reason, I personally believe it is evidence that Jesus did exist, as no ordinary people came up with this.

I agree with your take on it, and I share your frustration with the official version. It has made things more difficult than they have to be, imho.

👣

I thought more about what some of you brought to the table relative to the opening post. (And I do hope LesMis reads this particular post, as some of his feedback prompted it too.)

What supports this argument that we are not independent, separate beings, is that the whole body is built for relating to others and things. The body-mind, from language to limbs is about relationship, connectedness - not self-isolation, separation, and independence.

The list of the body-mind's relational processes is endless. We are always in relationship, whether we like it or not, whether we admit it or not - we are not the independent separate entities that we have been led to believe by virtue of our desire to feel that a "me" exists inside.

Touch or feeling is our most pervasive sense - the body's entire covering has receptors for relating to various environmental stimuli. Feeling is not just about basic survival mechanisms, such as don't touch the hot fire, but about relating altogether with feeling. Say, who doesn't like a good massage?

What about the body-mind when it is not in relationship, when we are trying to be independent from our connectivity all around? What has actually happened? We have separated ourselves into some small "space" apparently within the body-mind, and generally associated with the head. When our attention is constantly locked up in this space, thinking, thinking, thinking, what is happening with feeling as the body-mind?

The body-mind has great capacity to feel, but we tend not to because it breaks up this pattern of assuming we are completely separate and independent.

But when we feel whole bodily in relationship, we also feel happy! Really feel into this - when you feel your relatedness altogether, you feel happy.

And when you feel separate, you feel uptight, contracted upon a knot. The energy of life is obstructed by this knot (like a knot in a hose) - not flowing throughout the body-mind.

The secret to slowing down aging is to hook up with the energy of life via feeling one's inherent relatedness.

So we can actually be responsible for this process moment to moment via turning our feeling and attention to the condition we are always in - relationship.

The short version of this is: You can only feel as good as you feel.

People are fed by relationship. For instance, sincere and deserved praise is food for the heart. Regardless of what people may pretend, everyone wants love. It is our most basic heart impulse to be in union with that which is love. One can notice this.

Why do we come to ATS? For relationship, of course - regardless of any other motive.

This discipline of always noticing and living on the basis of our inherent relatedness will give us great capacity to love.

The short version of this is: If you want to be loved, then be love.

And regarding this matter of the illusion of the ego-I somewhere in the body-mind, then what are we, if we are not that separate one? We are the whole body-mind complex - whatever that is altogether. In that whole bodily disposition, we discover our capacity to feel, love, and be loved - and heart-based reality-intelligence awakens.

Thank you!

P.S. Obviously I am fine with all kinds of seemingly off-topic discussions, especially since I generate many myself. Since they are in relationship to others, one could say they are on topic!

However, I would like people who have not, to at least read the opening post before responding to various "off-to-the-side-of-the-topic" considerations going on now.

a reply to: bb23108

Actually a rock is a modification of consciousness. Consciousness is the witness but the rock of course has no awareness, like a body-mind does. There is no mechanism of attention for consciousness (awareness) to hook up with in a rock - at least as far as I know! Now I have seen some trees, like old redwoods, that definitely had some kind of awareness in unity with consciousness.

I certainly agree. It's amazing how lucky we are. In the Universe, there is such an infinitesimally small fraction of it (in fact, infinitely small...closer to ZERO than anything else) staring back at itself. We are very lucky indeed.

originally posted by: Visitor2012
I certainly agree. It's amazing how lucky we are. In the Universe, there is such an infinitesimally small fraction of it (in fact, infinitely small...closer to ZERO than anything else) staring back at itself. We are very lucky indeed.

Yes, very fortunate indeed. To have access to the teachings of Truth, and to have an opportunity to learn to transcend the ego-I in such a difficult place, also can make us stronger in that capacity.

Plus this gross world keeps attention anchored to the body-mind, rather than flying about in various seductive astral dimensions - so attention (as the root essence of egoity) can potentially be understood and gone beyond by the grace of reality more readily in this place than elsewhere.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
It is thought which imagines an 'end'.

Thought doesn't imagine anything. Thought is the result of learning how to speak. Once that happens, the internal "conversation" (stream of thought) never really ceases until it is fully transcended. That part of the brain-mind is just a continuous patterning otherwise.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
If it is not reality which surrenders then there must be an assumption that there is something other.

I understand what you are saying. However, if we only try to speak in ultimate terms, why bother speaking at all? Best just to feel reality fully beyond all speech.

We could just post a few nonsense words, and we would all know that meant to simply contemplate the Divine condition we all are modifications of.

Language was developed around the presumption of a separate "I", so there are many inherent limitations in communicating what transcends the "I".

On the other hand, if we are trying to communicate something specific about the process of transcending the perceptions and conceptions of the illusory ego-I, it may be necessary to speak using the language conventions we all understand.

But if you prefer...

xtun vtpw!

a reply to: bb23108
Before the age of 18 months, before the language centre in the brain develops, there is just what is happening. And then the speech mind comes into play - 'plain seeing' and plain hearing' gets turned into 'I am' seeing and 'I am' hearing.
The truth is hidden in 'plain sight' - in the plain act of seeing.
The 'I am' is attached to the happening - this is when the separation occurs. Out of nowhere there appears to be a 'me' seeing 'something'.
The 'I am' is an illusion - an added extra - the reality is that seeing and hearing are just happening, there is no one 'doing' seeing and hearing.
The 'me' that appears to be seeing 'something' makes two 'seeming things'. Reality is not two things - it is one without a second.

However, if we only try to speak in ultimate terms, why bother speaking at all? Best just to feel reality fully beyond all speech.

Who can feel reality? The 'who' is the imagined separation. Reality is what is happening regardless of how it is appearing - if it is appearing as words or as thought stream then that is reality.

Thought doesn't imagine anything. Thought is the result of learning how to speak. Once that happens, the internal "conversation" (stream of thought) never really ceases until it is fully transcended. That part of the brain-mind is just a continuous patterning otherwise.

Words arise and seem to mean something - this was posted:

Well, at least you recognize it will just be life-long, since at the end reality will NOT be the one doing the surrendering!

There will be no one doing the surrendering. This is reality - it is not at the 'end' of a 'life long' quest. Reality is not somewhere else or some when else. Reality is what is happening regardless - but you seem to think that 'Sooner or later We All Must Surrender to Reality'.
'Sooner or later' implies time - that reality is found in time and can be found by someone. 'Time' and 'someone' go hand in hand.
'We must surrender' - there is no one who can surrender - but reality can be realized to be simply what is happening. And then the separate person would be seen to be an illusion.

Words will continue to arise - there is nothing that can stop thought from happening, however, when thoughts and words (concepts) are just seen to be arising and not speaking about 'me' then the game is up.

Who Can Surrender To What?

Until it is recognized that you truly are all that is, there will be feelings of lack - and a seeking for wholeness will occur.
What you are is the source and the sum of all that appears to exist.

Is there anything other than what is actually happening?

a reply to: Itisnowagain
You obviously did not understand the point I was trying to make. I will try one more time.

Yes there is only Reality. Yes we are modifications of that reality, but we are associated with stepped-down frequencies of Reality's Unqualified Consciousness-Light-Energy.

Reality is prior to ALL apparent form including the illusory perceiver, the perceived, and the perceiving. You somehow think Reality is the perceiving or seeing. Reality is prior to but not separate from these stepped-down illusory objects.

Reality is not the activity of seeing. This is where the new-age philosophy seems to get stuck - in some kind of understanding that, yes, there is no separate perceiver and perceived, but wait, there is perceiving! So they conclude that perceiving or seeing is what Reality is - and then start talking in only that manner.

To me this is silly to always communicate in such a manner, because it does not communicate to people in a way that is usually understandable to them. Plus it only offers a mental insight into non-dualism, at best.

Yes, I understand the apparent duality in the title of this thread - but the point was not to get hung up in semantics and find fault with the way something is described (which you really like to do), but rather communicate on the basis that people can relate to what is being said.

Like I said before, but you did not address, we could just write only in "non-dual speak", but this actually makes communication often misunderstood, and sometimes sounds very contrived.

Maybe you should start a thread where only "non-dualist speak" is allowed, to see how well things get communicated - rather than mainly bringing up semantic arguments that after a certain point don't really serve the purpose of the thread.

That being said, I do appreciate what you said about children before the language is developed. I agree with that, except that Reality is prior to the perceiving. It is not just the lack of an illusory perceiver that makes for Truth, as I already mentioned earlier.

Yes, very young children before the language is developed, do not suffer the illusion of the separate perceiver, but they also have not realized the Truth. Again, Truth is prior to (and yet not separate from) all perceiving.

Because very young children are not knotting themselves up with the illusory separate self-sense, their life force is flowing much more freely in their bodies - but this is not a sign of their realizing the Truth. It is certainly a very delightful sign, but not one of their actual conscious realization of Truth.

a reply to: bb23108
A young child has not assumed that there is anything besides what is happening. A young child is simply seeing - seeing is happening but there is no one assumed to be seeing.
The act of just simply 'seeing' gets split into a 'seer' and a 'seen'. The assumed 'seer' then frets about 'something' - there appears to be 'something other'.
Now that there appears to be 'something other' the wholeness is lost - paradise is lost - that is when one is cast out of presence. One seeks in time for the end of the feeling of separation, thought says 'this is not all there is' and 'I want something different' and brings up stories about when it will be better and the thoughts are often believed making what is not good enough.
But the thoughts and the stories are what is happening - what is happening is reality.

If you are pointing to what there is prior to the forming then that would be nothing (like deep sleep where there is nothing appearing and you do not even know you are) but even with the forming it is still not a thing - no thing is happening. Through the forming light, by the fact that the light is appearing, you can know that you are.
What is happening is not made of things but things appear to be real because of naming.

If all words were totally wiped away what would there really be?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: bb23108
A young child has not assumed that there is anything besides what is happening. A young child is simply seeing - seeing is happening but there is no one assumed to be seeing.
The act of just simply 'seeing' gets split into a 'seer' and a 'seen'. The assumed 'seer' then frets about 'something' - there appears to be 'something other'.
Now that there appears to be 'something other' the wholeness is lost - paradise is lost - that is when one is cast out of presence. One seeks in time for the end of the feeling of separation, thought says 'this is not all there is' and 'I want something different' and brings up stories about when it will be better and the thoughts are often believed making what is not good enough.
But the thoughts and the stories are what is happening - what is happening is reality.

If you are pointing to what there is prior to the forming then that would be nothing (like deep sleep where there is nothing appearing and you do not even know you are) but even with the forming it is still not a thing - no thing is happening. Through the forming light, by the fact that the light is appearing, you can know that you are.
What is happening is not made of things but things appear to be real because of naming.

If all words were totally wiped away what would there really be?

and if a young chlld is repeatedly tortured? And again as an adult? I'm sure it's very easy to meditate and just philosophize..or even look someoene in the eye knowing they could send a broken toy back to the repair shop if it dares to cry and feel.

All this philosophizing..

yah, reality sucks love hurts there is no god and no happy endings.

The short version of this is: If you want to be loved, then be love.

this is ALL a tortured child knows of love. Teach that child what love is, tell that child to be responsible and think or not thing or tell it what to do or not do..it's just an empty slate to be filled when pain is involved..an empty template..

garbage in garbage out. how can I see myself when if anyone else could really see this kind of pain in 3d the only thing they would want to do is put me back to the same place that will only dish out more? The same place that was the cause of it?

love HURTS. Reality SUCKS. That's ALL I know. And words are dangerous because they will only cause more. "The beatings will continue until the morale improves". THAT'S REALITY.

originally posted by: bb23108

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: bb23108

I think a lot of it has to do with disparities.

Yes, I agree with you. We find injustices everywhere - this world is definitely a very difficult, even sorrowful domain - I mean just the fact that we love others and they die, makes it obvious this place is no heaven-world or utopia.

But this difficulty should not keep us from loving, nor recognizing and living on the basis of our inherent relatedness - even in the face of all the ordeals we do encounter.

Thank you.

but it does. It always does. It's so much easier to talk to and be real and explore feelings on the ethernet. Try to do it in person and they would torture you or abandon your or lock you up. In the end, I am alone, and always was, and know it now. Thoughts don't matter, flesh and blood and reality does, and in that reality I am alone. I don't know about anyone else, but I know some have love and I don't which means I don't have it 'inside' which means I must not deserve it since everyone says it has to 'come from within'. Well what is 'within' is a great big gaping wound, and you don't tell someone like that to apply the bandage to themselves, nor do you kick them when they are down and tell them to get up. Something happened along the way..I made too many wrong decisions and now others feel like I deserve to suffer for it and I don't. It's as simple as that. I am going to take a drive since I'm out of cigs, but will post later. And since I said that I would post later, that means that I have no intent to harm myself or anyone else, that is for the torturers of the world to do, or the 'objective observers', who are AS BAD AS THOSE WHO DO IT SINCE THEY WATCH AND DO NOT HELP, not the tortured.

aaaaand the thread is killed. by me, right?

because frankly I KNOW there is no answer as to why someone is not there other than they JUST DON'T CARE!

it's that simple. THAT'S YOUR REALITY.

cruelty and evil and apathy win. ALWAYS. that's *SNIP* R E A L I TY.

In the book "After Dachau" by Daniel Quinn, there is a part in the book where the lesson is brought home that 'NO ONE CARES'. It is the point of the entire book.

I live it.

According to 'law' whatever the heck that is, it is a crime to watch a rape, whether or not you participated.

ANYONE WHO WATCHES EVIL AND DOES NOTHING TO STOP IT IS NOT NEUTRAL BUT EVIL THEMSELVES, NO MATTER WHAT NAME THEY USE OR HOW MUCH POWER THEY HAVE, THEY ARE NOT 'ABOVE' EVIL, THEY ARE EVIL, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

sooner or later we all die. I hope it's still not a crime to say I really hope that day happens soon for me.

Watching nature can tell a lot about life in general.