DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Platos Kave
HTML https://platoskave.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 4234--------------------------------------------------
Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: Plato
Date: December 2, 2018, 1:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This mind is continually challenged in it's efforts to convey
the Understanding from over here, this is what many of the
conversations I have with Justin seem to always come down to; a
crevasse of mis-understanding that can't be crossed because mind
cannot understand no-mind and no mind can convey an
understanding that comes from "out of mind".
It is then somewhat of a paradox to "know" that it's impossible
to convey the "Understanding" using mind and language and yet
somehow accept that that knowledge doesn't seem to deter the
desire to do so...
It is in this vein that I offer the clearest writing on the
subject I have come across, I've mentioned it before but I'm not
aware if anyone here has actually read it; David Carse's
"Perfect, Brilliant, Stillness". The book is home ground here,
it covers exactly what happened (didn't happen) here to this
body/mind and the transition from dream character, (albeit a
lucid one, seemingly co-creating my existence with aplomb,
utilizing free will and directed focus to create my beautiful
house of cards) to an embodiment of the simple understanding of
the nothingness of what is.
These two states are mutually exclusive, you can't have
enlightenment light and then go back to your dream world and the
character dreaming it... All dreams, even waking ones, are
rendered worthless and meaningless under the total destruction
wreaked upon them by The Understanding.
As a bit of a precursor to the book I offer this dialog which
reminded me of conversations here, Carse utilizes language
masterfully here when trying to convey to a mind the sense of
mindlessness that the Understanding demands and the fact that it
is after all, the dissolution of mind that ushers in the
knowingness of the Understanding.
In the end it is only through grace that the mind implodes and
that, only after a distinct willingness of mind toward total
surrender of perceived control. A mind so imploded will read a
book like Carse's and know the truth of it's exacting take on
reality/unreality, a normal mind will question nearly every
assertion and reject it as nonsense.
Enjoy.
Perfect Brilliant Stillness
Comments on the book by David Carse
Purchase book from Amazon.com.
Purchase book from Amazon.UK.
Visit Capacitie, the website of Alan Mann and home of the Now
ezine.
The following is in three parts. Firstly, there is a review of
the above book by Susan Hansen, published in issue 114 of Now
ezine. In the following month's issue, Alan Mann published a
letter which he had sent to the book's publisher (Julian Noyce)
at Nondualty Press. The letter had been passed on to David Carse
who then replied to Alan. This reply was also published. The
letter and reply constitute the second and third parts of this
page.
I. Review by Susan Hansen
This newly released book by an American carpenter (living in
Vermont in New England) is a wonder. Rather like a gentle whack
on the shoulder from a master, it encourages awakening. Right
from the first page one sees this book will be different: it is
not copyrighted because as Carse says, "the thoughts and
concepts expressed are not mine." He next makes it clear that
this is not one of the many books "to help you live a better
life, become a better person, and realize your full potential as
a spiritual being." He forewarns that if one understands at
least some of what the book's words point to, it will be quite
disturbing; further, it can be the end of you altogether. Self
realization is not comfort but annihilation.
Carse begins each chapter with quotes from various masters which
adds international flavor. He gives extensive detail on his own
awakening experience and the search afterward for clarity on
what had happened to him. He visits Ramesh Balsekar in India and
reads extensively (there is a large bibliography.) He comments
on various current spiritual teachers and their problems. Carse
does not teach. This is it.
From the sudden shift of perception that happened to him, it was
at once clear that "there's nobody home! There is Presence,
Being, Consciousness . There is this apparent mind/body in which
and as which Presence streams, functions, experiences. And that
is all; there is no separate individual self or entity or person
except as a mere thought construct."
He writes of the acceptance of what is, even the extremely
unpleasant and horrific aspects of life. In a way which is
beyond the comprehension of the human mind, there is a balance
and perfect unfolding. "There is no point, no purpose, no
meaning. Therefore no importance. Therefore no involvement.
Nothing needs to be any different." "The constant asking of
'why' is simply the mind's attempt to grasp for control." Seen
from this different perspective, nothing needs to be fixed or
judged. No good or bad or responsibility - all just is. Love is
the neutral holding of what is; "everything is literally made
out of pure Love, beyond love, streaming. Thus there is no way
anything at all can not be well. All is perfection, pure bliss
love outpouring. All is well. Totally."
Published by Paragate Publishing and Non-Duality Press UK, the
Buddha's heart mantra shines through the book: Gate gate
paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha. Gone, gone, gone all the way
over, everyone gone to the other shore, enlightenment, Joy!
Truly, this book IS perfect brilliant stillness.
Susan Hansen Oregon, USA
II. Letter from Alan Mann
Dear Julian,
I have been away in the hills for a few days and took the
opportunity to read Perfect Brilliant Stillness in the peace and
quiet. One of my current projects is to plough through about
forty years of my journal and salvage anything of interest to
the family before tossing them out. Many of the experts or
authorities David Carse quotes in his book have appeared in my
own records at one time or another so I found myself on familiar
ground as far as relating to his explanation of what he has been
through. In fact, his book is a very close cousin to my journal
as far as references, sources, guru quotes and so on is
concerned.
Obviously, I cannot comment on what he calls his ‘jungle thing’.
Most of us have openings of a similar nature if not so
comprehensive as the event he describes. It is that sort of
happening, which often sets us off on the search. That was so in
my case. I have no problem with what he says I just wish he
hadn’t said it so often. I thought his story unnecessarily
repetitive. And, of course, as mentioned in an earlier message,
I do not subscribe to the belief that it is all a dream. Nothing
in the book helped me to see it otherwise. I prefer the
alternative belief that there is, what is referred to, as
objective reality and that is how the All in All manifests. So,
all that stuff about I don’t exist, you don’t exist does not fit
with understanding as far as it unfolds here.
In making a comment like that I have to remind myself that is my
perspective on life. I find myself fully attuned to all the
quotations he includes and the ‘inperiences’ he records but
totally opposed to the conclusions he draws from them. He says,
on page 105, Nothing has happened. Experiences are not
important: in fact nothing is more important than anything else,
because nothing is happening here. Nothing happening here? I
think David would be well advised to go back and remind himself
that he is describing his perspective and stop trying to
universalize it – notwithstanding the bad example, in this
regard, of Indian and other sages through the ages.
For me, to say that life is a dream is overdoing it, an analogy
strained to meaninglessness. I can just about cope with
dream-like. Life is life – life is what happens as it unfolds –
why add to that simple word. We all feel it and are it why add,
what is for most of us, the very confusing idea that what we
understand by the word ‘life’ is ‘an illusion’. And usually
without including a comment explaining at what level that
statement might be true. The everyday consensus suffers from
excessive objectivity, the nondual position from excessive
subjectivity. Neither a subject nor an object might be a useful
motto in considering these matters. And that reminds me that
Douglas Harding responds to Hamlet’s famous question with ‘to be
and not to be – that is the answer’. That, I think, addresses
the reality of life, the essential dualism of our being as
counterpoint to Being. The failure to address this question of
levels is, I think, the weak link in the book.
My view on this is underlined by the pair of Wei Wu Wei quotes
on page 184. First WWW points out the necessity of exposing the
mistaken identity and abandonment of an inexistent self then he
points out that we do not exist. However, he is careful to
explain that our non-existence lies in non-existence as
individual, separated entities. And I assume he would go on to
say that this is the case for all objects. So, I read that as a
claim that you and I exist all right but our existence
(individual being) is a secondary expression of ‘what is’. David
may intend that but in nearly 400 pages he failed to make it
clear for me. It had to creep out of a few of the quotes he
used. And, in particular, he excludes such an interpretation on
his “fine print” comments with which he opens the book: This
book will tell you that these ideas are absurd, because it’s
quite obvious that neither you nor anything else has ever
existed. Well, I for one don’t find it obvious and consider the
absurdity lies in making such statements without providing some
associated commentary such as “by exist I mean ex-ist – that is,
ex - out (of) and, sistere - to stand – to stand out from what
is or, to put it in more familiar terms, “fundamentally I am not
separated from the whole”.
Everything is consciousness is another frequently offered
dictum. I would be happier with ‘everything is apprehended in
consciousness’ or even apprehended as consciousness’’. To claim
that everything is consciousness strikes me as another version
of reductionism, the reverse of the materialist coin that
everything is matter and consciousness a late arriving material
epiphenomenon. I feel there is an enormous intelligence at work
and our attempts to make sense of it must be continually
qualified by an awareness of our inadequacy. David’s ex cathedra
pronouncements come across as far too certain; certain to the
point that he denies he is telling us what he believes to be
true but the very truth itself. Doesn’t that have a familiar
ring in these times? He seems to overlook his sources in this
regard and even quotes the famous The world is illusory/Brahman
alone is real/Brahman is the world without any suggestion that
it is included as ironic comment on his position. (p355).
Love says that I am everything/Wisdom says I am nothing/Between
these my life flows/ says Nisargadatta (p83) I can agree with
Nisargadatta and Carse here but which part of that is the
dreaming part? My hero, Traherne, said Till we see our nothing
we cannot understand the value of our being. I am not denying
the underlying so-called no-thingness, which is another big
subject and that may be what Advaitists refer to as that which
is doing the dreaming or generating their dreams, including the
dream about life being a dream. (I think that must be so if I
follow his squid example on page 357). I think David Bohm, who I
see is quoted on page 379, offers the most convincing
contemporary account of how to relate the spiritual notion of
emptiness or Sunyata with the underlying no-thingness of
contemporary science.
Carse quotes with approval on the ‘fine print’ page, only once
in a thousand, thousand years does a soul wake up, and goes on,
in the book to give well deserved credit to Ramana Maharshi for
his contribution to these matters but who also pointed out that
it is as plain and obvious as a gooseberry in the palm of your
hand.
I think the book would have been better if written as a journal,
it seems to be too unstructured, unplanned and too long (like
this response, and I see much of myself in David’s not knowing
when to stop) for a coherent presentation and, in spite of the
jungle thing, it is too derivative; the sort of work you could
put together by trawling through the available literature. It
would have had more impact if he had distanced himself from what
has gone before and come up with his own version in his own
words of why it is all an illusion. I really hoped he would
throw some light on the claim that it is all a dream or
illusion, that consciousness is all there is and that you and I
don’t exist. I am no wiser about why or how he sees things this
way than when I started.
I wish I could have given a more generous response to the book;
something on the lines of Susan Hansen’s open-hearted review.
However, I can’t overlook or help resisting what strikes me as
dogmatic non-dualism which seems to be appearing on all sides.
Someone needs to come up with something like The Essential
Dualism to balance things out a bit. The book will appeal to a
lot of people who are exploring, especially those setting out,
as it provides a wide-ranging introduction to most of the key
figures in the field and in spite of my disagreements, I enjoyed
reading it in the spirit of exploring an opposite view to mine.
Alan Mann
#Post#: 4235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: Plato
Date: December 2, 2018, 1:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
III. Response from David Carse
(A note of explanation. The words in blue are taken from the
above letter to David. Those in red are sections taken from
Perfect Brilliant Stillness.)
alan,
julian has passed along a letter from you concerning perfect
brilliant stillness; i hope you will not consider an unsolicited
response an intrusion. your letter comes through as intelligent
and full of integrity. and there is a sense that you may be
right about similarities in some of the ways these minds
function. i do not know you or your intentions. responses have
been offered to some who have retorted that they have no
interest in waking up, they just like collecting ideas. if that
is the case, please disregard this letter; you are doing well. i
don’t sense that is the case here, and this is simply written in
response to the crossing of these paths. thank you for your
thoughts, and thank you also for your graciousness in publishing
susan hansen’s review.
your allergy to certainty in these matters is deeply shared. the
idea of a ‘final’ or ‘ultimate’ understanding is an inherently
anathema concept; surely such a claim could only be a sign of
ignorance? within the dream, yes, you are very right. and, these
sayings do not come from an understanding within the dream.
I cannot explain this, because I am otherwise somewhat rational.
Not only is there no doubt. The very concept of doubt does not
exist. The word that comes frequently is that it is ‘obvious,’
but evidently that is an abuse of a good word because when it is
used in conversations it usually draws blanks. Nevertheless.
What is right in front of you, more than that, what you actually
are, what all this is, what cannot be escaped from, what cannot
be otherwise, is obvious, even if in most cases apparently there
is not seeing. (p.17)
of course the objection is, Well, I for one don't find this
obvious and consider the absurdity lies in making such
statements without providing some associated commentary... yet
obvious it is, and has ever been in each case where the seeing
occurs: as you quote from the maharshi, it is as plain and
obvious as a gooseberry in the palm of your hand. not to be
certain about what is obvious would be absurd, foolish,
disingenuous. of course i cannot pretend to be what i am not:
equally, i cannot refuse to be, to see, what i am. some seem to
find this disturbing.
It is what it is, and if it is not acceptable, that’s cool too;
after all, there really is no compelling reason for it to be
accepted. As soon as there is fiddling around with concepts and
modes of expression, the david thing, along with everybody else,
is likely to be quite ‘wrong.’ But what is Understood is very
simple. It is What Is. And there can only be pointing toward it
from various angles, which pointing in this case, because of the
conditioning, will very likely not be in classical form. (257-8)
not a communicator here, not a teacher. blindingly obvious,
‘seen’ not ‘known’, yet it seems cannot be expressed. i know
nothing. the mind is what it is, impenetrable. insists on some
associated commentary when what is, is ineffable, precisely not
of mind. from within the dream, you are absolutely right. as
long as the dream is understood to be ‘real’, of course it is
absurdly extreme to call life a dream. how to cross that gap?
all that stuff about I don't exist, you don't exist can’t
possibly fit with the understanding from the point of view of a
dream character. this is what much of the book is about. it is
not possible to understand this so that it can be seen. it must
be seen to be understood. this ‘surrender’ is ‘understanding’,
and it has nothing to do with understanding anything. easier for
a camel, my friend.
you resonate with your hero traherne, and comment on other
teachers that you agree with. please see that resonating and
agreeing are not the useful input we have been trained to think.
this is what www is saying on p.235. it is only what the dream
character false self finds familiar and comfortable, what I
would be happier with... not a relevant test for truth. I prefer
the alternative belief... but what beliefs the mind prefers, are
unimportant. how can the mind’s preference, itself a product of
conditioning and false imagination, be an indicator of truth?
silliness. the individual sense of being a ‘self’ taking
it‘self’ far too seriously. “ We can’t insist on a truth that
makes sense in light of what we know because we don’t know
anything.”
For me, to say that life is a dream is overdoing it, an analogy
strained to meaninglessness. I can just about cope with
dream-like. but you see: of course; ‘for me’. for the dream
character, it is essentially and inherently meaningless,
incomprehensible, unacceptable. ...which part of that is the
dreaming part?...what Advaitists refer to as that which is doing
the dreaming or generating their dreams, including the dream
about life being a dream... the mind is a product of the dualism
it enshrines. there is no one doing the dreaming, no thing
generating, and ‘Advaitists’ know it is not ‘their dreams’ as
there is not, cannot in any sense be any ones here dreaming.
yes, i know, half-baked teachers galore spout this advaita
drivel, that can’t be helped. words. no translation. what is
seen is that there is only the dreaming, and there are no parts.
there is only clear seeing. once seen it cannot not be seen.
little ability to communicate it, to penetrate the dream mind
which values the valueless and does not see the obvious. no
need. the book did flow out, but of course it makes no ‘sense’.
foreign non-language, no translation. this is spelled out many
times in the book. those who have glimpsed, recognize. the mind
dislikes, objects, finds it absurd. ... What is written about
here, if it is really understood, is so genuinely strange that
it is on the far edge of what the normal human brain can
comprehend or accept. I wouldn’t have understood it myself, or
found it interesting, before what happened in the jungle.
what is absurd of course is believing you are the illusion, the
dream character. the illusory self says it would be absurd to
stop believing in itself. no evidence? you are surrounded by
evidence. you see what you believe and believe what you see...
(yes, david bohm on page 379). you will not see the evidence
until you are convinced. ha! “ Earthly things must be known to
be loved. Divine things must be loved to be known” thus, bhakti;
which the mind hates, avoids, thinks it is already beyond,
superior to.
the mind, of course, will always insist that it exists, that it
is not a dream. of course.
the mind is confused, that’s its nature. the mind can’t be used
to find no-mind. it will always be confused. don’t take it so
seriously. look around it while it’s busy, around mind, ah.. no
mind. what i is, god presence perfect beauty here, what is, what
else is there? no thing. look around the mind. yes, i know, the
mind will say, ‘now he’s being anti-intellectual’. nudging
toward trans-rational, not pre- or anti-rational. but it doesn’t
matter. all only pointers.
no words or thinking or any of this can help. none of this is
true. all of this, spiritual writings and teachings, are only
one thing: an attempt to trip you up. that’s all. don’t take any
of it literally. all there is is presence... there’s no such
thing as presence. silly idea. calling it perfect or brilliant
is just a way it is experienced here. stillness is stillness,
how can it be brilliant?
the mind interprets in terms of what it already knows. (p.233-4)
you know ‘openings of a similar nature... which sets us off on
the search. It was so in my case..’, and so the mind assumes,
interprets accordingly. not of a similar nature. not setting
off, but ending. not transforming a life but obliterating it.
the crushing flash that annihilates. nothing, nothing. this is
in the book, but cannot be seen if the mind already thinks it
knows. this is why the repetition irritates. there is resistance
each time, wishes it would go away.
the mind has a loop, ‘reality is what we take to be true...’
etc. we only experience what we think we know, and vice versa.
what we call reality, what we think of as possible, is just the
mind’s construct, consensus reality. a closed circle. you intuit
that what you want is outside the circle, but how to get there?
the mind cannot. all of spirituality is only an attempt to break
the vicious circle, trip you up, make the mind stumble, jump the
track. that’s all. and all you can ‘do’ is be willing. in the
unfolding of all this, there can be such a thing as setting
yourself up to be tripped. of not always resisting, protesting,
arguing, ‘totally opposed.’ of learning, perhaps gradually,
surrender; into a place where tripping up happens. unspeakable.
does exist. cannot be expressed. none of these things said or
written are literal. just attempts to let the mind jump the
track, trip. the mind resists tripping. it’s an old story. it’s
good, although it can feel unpleasant. tripping happens. grace.
don’t worry.
the only function of mind, the only ‘act of will’, that is
appropriate is complete surrender. not that any act of will is
possible, not that there is any person to make such an act, not
that there is any such thing as human will; just that at least
surrender is not inconsistent with the non-existence of the
entity. the mind, of course, resists. self preservation. needs
to be tripped.
the crux is, you were never created. eternal unborn. that’s the
heart of it. made a stab at describing it in the book, failed,
of course, can’t really express it, no one can. eternal unborn.
never created, that’s the heart, that’s all there is.
www (Wei Wu Wei an Irishman whose real name was Terence Gray. AM
) at the very beginning of the book: “the essential
understanding is that in reality nothing is. this is so obvious
that it is not perceived.”
this, my friend, you must come to terms with. the mind does not
like this, finds it strained to meaninglessness, absurdity.
necessarily so. can you see that the only point of spiritual
teaching, and the only aim of any teacher, is to press this
strain to breaking? Everything is consciousness is your
misreading. consciousness is all-there-is. universe of
difference. conceptually, there is everything, and there is this
awareness. and everything is not. and this awareness is. i
understand fully that from the ‘human’ or dream standpoint, this
is unacceptable. you have read the book selectively. the thread
that runs through the book is that this can only be pointed to
obliquely, and that one such pointer, not literal, not to be
understood with the mind, is that of the dream. how it is that
it is a ‘dream’ is indicated many times. but it cannot be seen
with the mind.
If ‘this,’ the world of things and ideas, is seen as what is
real, as true, as ‘reality,’
then That which is completely and radically ‘not-this,’
for which there are no words or ideas within ‘this,’
will necessarily be seen as no thing, as unreal...
It is only when ‘this,’ this so-called ‘reality’
is completely understood to be dreamlike illusion
that what is ‘not-this’ will, at the same time, be seen to be
What Is.
...the heart turns from the illusion of ‘this’ and opens to What
Is. (p. 353-4)
yes, i understand well that from within the dream this is not
easy to see this way. as douglas has said (p.346), everyone sees
it, cannot not see it; but has been conditioned to turn away
immediately and the mind will not recognize that it sees it.
when experiencing began in ‘alan’, manifestation was not seen as
it is now seen and called ‘real’ by alan. this was learned. pure
impersonal witnessing without belief was displaced with the
mind’s insistence on the absurdity of its own existence.
to awaken is precisely to quiet the mind’s insistence,
objection, absurd commentary. for the heart to turn from the
illusion of ‘this’ and open to what is. ramana maharshi: “you
will come in due course to realize that your true glory lies
where you cease to exist.” this too my friend you must come to
terms with.
when ramana said the heart is the only reality, mind only a
transient phase, what was he talking about? when mystics and
teachers talk about god as presence, what are they referring to?
jesus said the living place of god is within; if this were
‘known’ or seen or experienced, how would it be known or seen or
experienced? he who discovers the true meaning will never die.
you will be astonished.
from within the dream, you are absolutely right: to call all
this a dream is absurd, and to speak with certainty is
laughable. the understanding from which this is being said is
not from within the dream. the language is, yes, and also the
understanding with which this is being heard. which is the
difficulty. and yes, there is a sense in which ‘you’ and ‘all
this’ exist in a manner of speaking (p.313, 327, and a couple of
chapters on how it is a matter of mistaken perception which
creates the illusion).
but to insist ‘the world does really exist’ is to cling to the
mind’s familiar, the mind’s comfortable. you’ve got that part
down cold, are in no danger of losing whatever balance is
provided by that. for you the call is to see the deeper truth,
to come to terms with ramana’s “what is not present in deep
sleep does not exist,” with www’s “in reality nothing is,” with
maharaj’s “ realize that you are dreaming a dream you call the
world,” with david’s “there is no one home, there is nothing
happening here.”
yes, i understand that from within the dream these sayings are
absurd, ...bad example of Indian and other sages through the
ages... they are simply pointers my friend, to a direction in
which there may be movement if the mind eases its grip; pointers
in a direction where it will indeed be obvious that you do not
exist. yes, there is no object, there is no subject. this is not
‘true’ on one level and ‘not-true’ on another. the insistence on
levels is the mind’s dream of separation, of dualism. there are
no ‘levels’.
so-called awakening means popping out of the context in which
‘levels’ make any sense.
words and books are unhelpful: the book is full of words used
obliquely to point away from themselves, and even though there
are 3 chapters of disclaimer in the beginning and further
mentions throughout that none of what follows is true, asking
that you don’t latch on to the words, etc., it’s inevitable: the
mind reads selectively, sees ex cathedra statements and tedious
repetition and has its buttons pushed. the way of all the earth.
please stop reading books. please stop believing your own
thoughts, what your mind tells you. none of this is true. follow
the pointers in the direction where the mind objects. “ ...The
mind will rebel in the beginning, but with patience and
perseverance it will yield and keep quiet.” (maharaj). easier
for a camel, yes. grace. tripping happens.
all is well my friend. svaha! thank you.
David
#Post#: 4236--------------------------------------------------
Re: Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: biisuto
Date: December 2, 2018, 5:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have had a sample of Carse’s book in my Kindle since...? I
never read it and, like most of my books, I can’t recall who
recommended it... I appreciate the commentary you posted and
feel no urgency to take it further.
We’ve effed tf out of the ineffable here - and every round has
been fun... I’m very glad to have you guys to do that with,
because frankly the world is pretty batsh*t and I can’t imagine
not having a place, where it all makes sense (...that nothing
makes sense), to retreat to occasionally.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#Post#: 4238--------------------------------------------------
Re: Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: j(
Date: December 3, 2018, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad that you've found something that parallels your
experience Steve. I don't really have much to say about it
anymore. "Efft the eff out on the ineffable" sounds about right.
All that really remains is the experience and the storyline
behind it all not so much.
Our little bundle of joy is here and that's what's happening
here. It's real and authentic. She's beautiful and perfect and
I'm totally focused on on being there for her. That's maybe as
selfless as it gets. No method needed.
I'm glad to have been a part of all of this but at this point
there isn't much interest in the personal perspectives of others
on their experiences. What's been brought to the forefront
what's happening here immediately. As if time has stopped and
what's happening outside of this is not happening at all. You
could call it done but then it would draw reference to something
else and that something else just doesn't exist anymore. Chat
later maybe. Be well.
#Post#: 4239--------------------------------------------------
Re: Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: Plato
Date: December 3, 2018, 12:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Totally get it guys, and here, it's all thats left that really
interests me, a strange pull to express the inexpressible. It's
why I paint after all, the same drive but now it's no longer a
search for meaning, only for a way to express that meaning.
Congrats on the baby girl!!! My baby girl celebrated her 25th
bday last night, I cooked and the wine flowed, it was an amazing
night, you will be so shocked to find out how quickly those 25
years go by Justin, sounds like you're in a great position to
take it in fully.
I see there are a few lurkers here; if you'd like a taste of
that book you can find it here:
HTML https://archive.org/stream/PerfectBrilliantStillnessDavidCarseEbookPDF/Ebook_Perfect_Brilliang_Stillness_David_Carse_output1_djvu.txt
the out of print book is pricey on Amazon but you can get it on
audible or silk sound books read by Terence Stamp, it's quite
good in that form.
#Post#: 4246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: Plato
Date: December 13, 2018, 7:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't saying you can't engage the dream, I was saying you
can't engage it the way your dream character did, engaging it
with a whole bag of misconceptions and beliefs, the awakened no
longer carry on with those limitations nor can they ever again.
Just like when you are flying over mountains by flapping your
arms and then you awake to find you are actually in your bed,
there is no going back to that dream of flying but you also are
not bound by the parameters of your dream anymore either.
#Post#: 4254--------------------------------------------------
Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: biisuto
Date: December 16, 2018, 2:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I know exactly what you mean by “dream character”. The other
night I was a transwoman P.I., taking down Islamic assassins and
avenging the death (by his crooked boss) of my police detective
boyfriend, murdered in cold blood.
Within the dream it was so “of course”...afterwards, obviously
not so in the slightest!
Cool dream (- I was even reasonably hot!) and the best kind of
REMinder that this “waking” character is likewise mere
projection upon the screen that is this consciousness.
PS: got a notification of your post J!
PPS: been meaning to ask for awhile now, so will here- would
either or both of you guys be interested in joining me for an
episode of my radio show? It’s live from 10-11pm at GMT +8hrs,
on Tuesday nights. Would work out something pre-recorded if the
time is too crazy, but I find live is always more interesting.
The conversation would be about nothing of course...
The archive link is below. If you get a chance or are just
curious, please listen to last week’s episode. I archive all
episodes but haven’t got them uploaded anywhere, while I keep
working on the format.
Click the link and then locate and click the 22:00 time code
link at the bottom right. Show is called “Edge ofThe Abyss”,
...naturally. [emoji57]
HTML http://radiofremantle.com/tuearchives.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#Post#: 4255--------------------------------------------------
Re: Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: biisuto
Date: December 16, 2018, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gaaahhhh! Justin, just back read to your announcement: congrats,
man!! All the best to the three of you and - absolutely- you’ll
be drowning in immediacy for the foreseeable future!
....name...?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
#Post#: 4257--------------------------------------------------
Re: Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: j(
Date: December 16, 2018, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey Mike. Thanks man! We were really blessed with a beautiful
healthy fat little baby girl lol. Her name is Cianna Sophia. Mom
was calling her that at about 6 months in so I'm smart enough to
just roll with it if ya know what I mean.
Im fairly busy as are both of you I'm sure but I could always
spare an hour and would love to have a real time conversation
about nothing lol. It would be great if Steve could join in too.
I feel like the more the merrier and honestly it could great fun
because there are several directions we could go with all of
this. I've been kinda integrating this stuff for a while now so
it could have some practically to it as well.
Sometimes on this forum the focus gets lost in between the
response time of posts so I think it could be nice to try and
pin something down between us. I'm actually doing something
similar later today in the form of a live meeting on zoom so
just let me know. I dont have a preference on live or
prerecorded. If it happens, it would be fun and if not no
problem. Hope all is well. I'll be in touch.
#Post#: 4258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Words suck at conveying the ineffable...
DIR By: Plato
Date: December 17, 2018, 7:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: biisuto link ---
>
> I know exactly what you mean by “dream character”. The other
night I was a transwoman P.I., taking down Islamic assassins and
avenging the death (by his crooked boss) of my police detective
boyfriend, murdered in cold blood.
>
> Within the dream it was so “of course”...afterwards, obviously
not so in the slightest!
>
--- End Quote ---
Nice, yes it's that dream character, the one you "think" you
are, not the one during sleep but the one during the day. I once
thought of myself as an important artist and within that
thought, it was very easy to get very upset at a museum not
inviting me or my work to a specific show, this actually
happened and I actually called the director of the museum to set
him straight on how I should have been included...
What a fvcking idiot dream character I was! Living in my own
made believe world of ego and importance. That could never
happen now, this is the difference I am talking about, certain
things have not changed, I still do art, it's the "dream" I had
been living in, centered around that fact, which is now
nonexistent. I just do art, what people think of it and how they
react to it, is none of my business, I am no longer a dream
character trying to control the art I do and it's destiny, kinda
boring sometimes but in such a great way.
I think it would be fun to get the band together for your show!
Could be a "sh!t show" but sometimes thats the more interesting
kind ;D
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page