This makes it worth to have a blog. Maria is a gem, and she summed up my previous post (“Scientology or not”) beautifully:
2. Scientology has not provided a consistent way of handling people’s issues and evidently does not provide a reliable way to deliver my main goals in life.
I think it is because the focus was never on your main goals in life. YOUR goals that is. Your goals were invalidated in favor of Scientology goals. The only tech in Scientology that ever addressed YOUR goals was the admin scale series and perhaps the LOC, but even that was organized around Scientology ideas. Wanting to work on YOUR goals was OTHER FISH TO FRY and somehow out-ethics. Strip off the invalidation for starters. Strip off the false data. They will probably flush into your awareness as you proceed towards creating YOUR goals. Make sure they are YOUR goals. You will will likely love them and be passionate about them if they are YOURS. They ARE worthy. YOU are worthy. Its okay to fail along the way and tweak your output. The state of the universe that forms as reality is the feedback mechanism. As-is the stuff that you dont want to output again, focus attention on what you do want to output. Tweak, refine, create, feedback.
Its okay to change your mind about goals and purposes or acknowledge that you are done with them. They are not all a big GPM implant mechanism designed to hurt, trap and keep you solidly in the MEST universe. They are your world. And they cannot be wrong, because they are your world, your create, your joy, your love, your direction.
Also, the highest purpose is not to create an effect unless that is YOUR highest purpose. So start working on YOUR goals. You do know the answers and you do know how to as-is the barriers and you do know when you are winning. I think it is pretty obvious when you are — more spacious, energetic, that delicious sense of a floating TA (you do not need an e-meter to recognize this.)
BTW no need to go backtrack or out of PT to as-is. Just as-is or blow by inspection whatever gets in the way. As-is works best from the highest level of awareness you can muster.
This is my current take on it. At least for now. Might not be yours though, but it is possible that others might find this helpful and so I am posting it here.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Well, not exactly. R6EW addresses the End Words on Goals. What goals? Who knows! Whatever dramatization the pre-Clear had going. Some of those must have been the pre-Clear’s own goals. Other than that, Maria makes a good point.
Hey Dan –
If R6EW worked, and there really was such a thing as “END WORDS” on an “R6 bank that we all supposedly have, why did LRH want to kill himself?
Alanzo
Al, I am thinking you never did Grade 6, as I believe you never did any of the Grades. So how would you know if Grade 6 worked or had any validity?
Is there something you are not telling us? Are you walking around with a bunch of truth in your head, or a chip on your shoulder?
Valkov: Al, I am thinking you never did Grade 6, as I believe you never did any of the Grades. So how would you know if Grade 6 worked or had any validity?
Chris: Valkov, yes please enlighten us from your experience on the validity of Grade 6. We will turn this into ESMB yet, or should we turn back?
Mr. Ridgy’s got his back up because I’m piscking (I accidentally made up a new word here…:-) ) on his favorite clubbed seal?
I never claimed to have an opinion or experience with Grade 6. I don’t need to. Al brought it up as though he knew what he was talking about. I don’t need to have a PHD myself, to question whether someone else has one or not.
If I ever claim a qualification I don’t have, you are free to deride me then. This time, you’re not.
So keep your pants on.
Well Jeez, Val. It’s just a shot in the dark for me – considering no EP in Scientology has ever been produced on anyone – I just figured this one hadn’t, either.
Grade VI release R6EW Return of powers to act on own determinism Freedom from dramatization
So you’ve seen all these Scientologists who’ve done R6EW running around with “powers to act on own self-determinism” and who had gained “freedom from dramatization”?
Could you point one out for me, please?
Alanzo
So who do you know that has done Grade 6?
So if you don’t know anyone who has done Grade 6, Val, how do you know it works?
I knew a guy at ASHO who did Grade 6 in the late 80’s. He walked around the halls with a note pinned to his shirt with something like “Do not talk to me. I am on Grade 6” written on it.
How do I describe this guy? He had coke bottle glasses, he squirmed a lot, and his eyes had a pained kind of look – both before and after Grade 6 – as if his underwear had jalapenos in them.
I did not know him very well. But I lived in LA for 11 years, and I never saw him in Scientology again after that.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it probably didn’t work on him. I do notice that Grade 6 fell out of use just about everywhere after that time period and has not really had a comeback.
But if you’ve got any evidence – any evidence at all that Grade 6 works – by all means, Val, let’s see it.
Alanzo
Al:
1. I never said I knew it worked. Or not.
2. I called into question whether YOU knew it worked. Or not.
3. Now it appears your opinion of Grade 6 is based on one day, 25-26 years ago, seeing one geeky-looking guy at ASHO who was on that Grade, who in your opinion should have emerged looking like George Clooney and playing basketball like Michael Jordan or something.
4. While never having done the level yourself….
Hidden standard much? Grasping at straws much?
I definitely nominate you for Geir’s scientific committee for the study of auditing results.
Also Val –
As LRH was the “discoverer” of Grade VI, and the greatest OT who ever lived, how does that jive with wanting to kill himself, as Sarge reports in Lawrence Wright’s book?
If he had not only erased the END WORDS on the R6 Bank and gone full OT – why would he have said he failed and that he wanted to kill himself?
Awaiting your sincere, to-the-point, explanation.
Alanzo
Who said LRH was “the greatest OT who ever lived”?
Valkov: Who said LRH was “the greatest OT who ever lived”?
Chris: uh, that would be L Ron Hubbard.
Where or when did he say that? Or, who said he said that?
I have the impression he said he was a human being, like you and me. I suppose though, that you are not so sure about me…. LOL.
Still awaiting your sincere, to-the-point, explanation, Val.
Think of it as a kind of “reboot”, Al. 🙂
p.s. aka ctrl-alt-delete
MAB
Also – Dan:
You were involved in RTRC, is that correct?
I know that, for instance Melanie Murray wrote the “What is a Course?” HCOB.
Why was her name, for instance, that taken off that issue and only LRH’s name appeared there? What was the decision making surrounding all that?
There are a lot of questions like this that would be great if they were answered so Scientologists – even independent ones – aren’t walking around with a bunch of lies in their heads about Scientology, its development, etc – don’t you think?
How come you haven’t written more about this kind of thing to set the record straight?
Now if I have it wrong, and you had nothing to do with any of this, then who did? And can you get them to start telling the truth about how things worked to PR Scientologists from Int Base?
What do you think about this? Do you think that Int Base people like yourself should start telling the truth now, and filling in a lot of the holes, or what?
Alanzo
Reblogged this on 31 Factors.
“The highest purpose is not to create an effect” – yes and yes! It is just to CREATE! It’s the ability of the Flow of Life itself (without any thought of reward (Geir), that is without any goal, any expectation=effect). I could write a lot of pieces of truth examples based on this post. It’s
as perfect as it is – and yes, I may. “Blowing by inspection from the highest awareness level” in
present time” is another ability of Life. As it “creates”, it also “views” its creation in that very “instant”. So it’s a natural ability of the “being”. Any unwanted “game condition” can be as-is-ed in this way. Also, stripping off invalidations…..down to the first creations (“deep” indeed)…….won’t go on…..Maria….what you write here is…………………………………….
Marianne says: “Blowing by inspection from the highest awareness level” in
present time” is another ability of Life. As it “creates”, it also “views” its creation in that very “instant”. So it’s a natural ability of the “being”.
Nicely said!
Thanks Maria 🙂
I think this is semantics. Personally my understanding of it is, anything one creates, is an effect. Of one’s cause. Any creation is, by definition, the effect of a creator.
This is how I’ve always understood the word. So I guess I’m not tracking with you guys?
I have no argument with the concept of the creation of an effect. I disagree that it is the HIGHEST PURPOSE. Personally, I see this as the basic common denominator of creation, not the highest purpose of it. Perhaps it is just me, but I find it to be dismissive of anyone else’s sense of value when it is presented as a core “truth.” I don’t accept it, I never have. I think it is at the core of the kind of invalidation I am talking about in the OP for this thread.
Bullseye.
I agree, Maria. It’s actually quite an evaluation if you think about it.
Any time someone defines the universe for you, or what your “highest purpose” is in it, watch out.
Alanzo :>
OK, it is the common denominator, I agree.
Can you give me an example of any purpose that is not purposed with the idea of creating an effect. I’m saying I think there is no such thing as a purpose that is created or adopted without the idea of creating an effect; thus there is no “higher” purpose available, ‘in the universe’.
I think this may be one of those perfect tautological statements Chris enjoys.
What about: “To create no effects”, “To be in total silence”, “Total bliss”, “Enlightened state”…
The way I see it, to “create no effect” one would have to postulate that very thing, and become the effect of that postulate. Kinda like the ultimate withhold.
All of those, ‘total silence’, total bliss’, ‘enlightened’, they all suffer that liability – they are all postulates or as Vin would call them, ‘considerations’. Therefore to have any of them as a purpose would entail creating them then being the effect of them.
One could ‘cease creating’, but personally I believe Native State is not a stable state. The thing is, in anything one considers experiencing, one must be the effect of the experience, by definition.
Buddha did not say much about it, but Buddhists since then have said ‘nirvana’ is not a totally blank state of total absence. Even the BigB himself I believe referred to it as a state having some qualities, ‘bliss’ being one of them. But to experience, to be the effect of ‘bliss’ one must exist in some form as an experiencing subject.
Now Buddhist doctrine does teach that ultimately even awareness and consciousness can be ‘extinguished’, but what would be the point?
I think that implies one has attained a state of having or not having consciousness at will, and this implies that there is still left a primary ‘awareness’ , as in ‘awareness’ of awareness.
Let’s sic Chris on this one, he’s the Big Tautologist Black Belt here.
“and the road you carry you lay before you”.
So if you stub your toe or slip on a banana peel, you are being the effect of your own road. In that sense there is a RWOT.
One can surely have a purpose of “creating no effects” or “the cessation of creation (of effects)”
I think I answered those already. How are those not cases of ‘effect on self’?
It is true that ‘cease creating’ is different, but one ceases creating something one has been creating. But it’s not the same as to ‘not create’ on a continuing basis, which would introduce ‘time’, wouldn’t it? Because without creation of effects, time would not exist. That is the discussion about ‘nirvana’, or perhaps ‘ultimate truth’, ‘Static’.
If ‘to postulate’ and to perceive’ are the two inherent qualities of Static (Native State), then I suspect it is an unstable state.
Perhaps the goal of Buddhist training is to develop beyond that, to an ability of just being able to ‘stay’ or ‘sit’ there in’bliss’, ‘all outflows extinguished’, as the translation usually has it?
I think it’s a nice place to visit, but would you want to live there? It can be a ‘purpose’ to reach that state, but once you have reached it, then what? Everything is ‘extinguished’ including all ‘mental formations’, consciousness, cravings, purposes, rebirths etc, all the 12 steps of ‘dependent origination’ ( or ‘conditioned genesis’ as it is also translated), the whole hamster wheel of ‘samsara’ is extinguished.
I imagine Buddha figured each one who attained that knowledge and abilities would do whatever s/he damn well pleased him do in a more conscious way. EG mock up a new purpose, a new game, or even just bathe in bliss for awhile.
Maybe a couple or more of these guys woulds it around and make mock-ups to show each other, as it was in the beginning or before the beginning, if that’s how it was back then…..
Curtain falls, in the background the music is playing
“Life is but a dream, shaboom shaboom shaboom….
Regardless of it being an unstable state or not – it can still be a purpose. Therefore it is proven that The Creation of an Effect is not the highest purpose.
OK, we’re clearly not understanding each other here, which appears to be a result of using some word with a different meaning. Let’s start with “purpose”. Creating an effect is inherent in the meaning of ‘purpose’. One cannot have and achieve a purpose without acting to create an effect. It is illogical to say so.
From the Free Online Dictionary:
pur·pose (pûrps)
n.
1. The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: “And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue” (Sarah Josepha Hale).
2. A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at
intention.
3. Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.
4. The matter at hand; the point at issue.
tr.v. pur·posed, pur·pos·ing, pur·pos·es
To intend or resolve to perform or accomplish.
Any purpose involves creating an effect, how much plainer can I say it? It’s inherent in the idea of it. What you are saying is illogical and contrary to the basic definition of the word ‘purpose’ as outlined above.
You may have some valid idea in mind, but it doesn’t translate into English as ‘purpose’.
What we have here is a 100% failure to communicate, and the first place I look when that happens is using the same word in a different meaning.
Perhaps Maria can shed some light on what’s happening here, since it was her post I originally responded to.
Valkov
One IS the EXPERIENCE (no previous or in-between postulate). The Creator-Created is the same….no person (self) involved. Here the Purpose of Life has “achieved” its Purpose as Life itself…..the nature of the Flow is such. There is still mind…but it is not “believed as truth” any more…. the Flow is “stronger”, can produce “thought” when it’s needed.., can as-is….just because it can….
MT, I appreciate what you’re saying, but the word ‘purpose’ does not apply in that context. ‘Purpose’ by definition involves a separation of subject and object and the existence of time, and the creation of an effect. Once a ‘purpose’ has been achieved that ‘game’ is over and to restate, the purpose is achieved, done, finished.
MT, you posted “there is still mind”. The existence of any mind demonstrates the existence of a ‘previous’ or ‘in-between postulate’ between the Experiencer and the Experience. This may be as subtle as the existence of consciousness or awareness, but it exists by a ‘postulate’ nonetheless. See my discussion of this at
https://isene.me/2013/03/06/comment-of-the-year-on-scientology-from-maria/#comment-32429
It’s OK for you or Geir to understand the words differently, as long as you realize that is what’s happening; if you don’t realize that’s what’s happening, then we start getting into Straw Man arguments and accusations and the whole nine yards which stops any progress towards increased understanding.
In other words, the story of the human race.
VERY well stated, Maria!
Anyway Maria, I love your post and my favorite part of it is still
“The state of the universe that forms as reality is the feedback mechanism.”
You have made so many fabulous posts in so many places I feel I should start collecting them.
Thank you Valkov! 😀
I often have an impulse to go and collect up various posts, some really are fantastic aren’t they! But then I get to feeling lazy and don’t get around to it! LOL!
Mike Rinder wrote on Marty’s blog:
(emphasis mine)
Here is my comment on Marty’s blog, awaiting “moderation”.
Alanzo | March 6, 2013 at 8:51 pm | Reply
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Why are you calling your fellow scientologists who have had their spiritual vulnerabilities exploited – just as you have , and just as we all have – “CLUBBED SEALS”?
Is that what you called them when you were lying to them from INT Base, too?
Alanzo
I’m taking bets on whether it gets through “moderation”.
Anyone?
Derail a thread much?
Well, he let it through, and answered, too.
It truly is a new day.
We’ll see if he let’s through my response to his.
Alanzo
Nope – he deleted it.
Sorry Maria, I just wanted everyone to see this.
Here is my response back to him, which he deleted:
Of course after he let one post through, you had to up the ante by posting something even more ‘assholish’ until he deleted it.
Isn’t that how you got yourself kicked off ESMB, too?
Test limits much?
Actually no. How I got myself kicked off of ESMB is by revealing that Mike Rinder was going around telling some critics that other critics were “OSA Agents”. Very similar to how Marty and Mike were 3rd Partying Lisa McPherson’s family by having people tell judges and lawyers in Pinellas County that Lisa McPherson’s family didn’t care about Lisa at all and were just money-grubbing DBs.
That’s pretty much Mike’s MO.
By the way, if you haven’t noticed it yet, Mike Rinder is not a nice guy. You can not look at his track record and say, “Oh, yeah. What a nice guy Mike Rinder is.”
So when he calls people “clubbed seals” after he has been clubbing them for decades, I’m going to say something about it, Val. Any time I can.
Alanzo
Isn’t it ironic that both Alanzo and Vinaire got kicked out of the anarchistic snake pit called ESMB, yet continue to post here?
I’d like some of that @ 100:1 it does not get posted.
Al, you’ve been out along time. When are you going to stop acting like a clubbed seal?
Why don’t you post about the people who wronged YOU, specifically? Are you getting some kind of vicarious thrill out of all this, endlessly running motivators? Is this the result of overrun, or unbalanced, FPRD auditing?
Is that what you were ‘clubbed’ with? I am truly puzzled.
Valkov: Al, you’ve been out along time. When are you going to stop acting like a clubbed seal?
Chris: Val, you’ve never truly been in. When are you going to stop acting like a Scientologist?
This is clearly use of “Scientologist” as an Ad Hom.
Val my Pal –
Are you an illegal PC, Valkov?
How could you be a Scientologist since the 1970’s, and have worked in psych hospitals for 13 years?
How does that come about, Val?
Did you ever do any work for CCHR?
OSA, perhaps?
Is Mike your old boss?
Alanzo
Ah come on Alanzo. You’ve made your point.
Sorry Maria, but this is a question that I have always had about Valkov and it has never added up. And since Valkov is completely incapable of staying on the point, I figured now would be as good of a time as any to get my question answered.
Have you ever wondered how Valkov could be a Scientologist since the 1970’s and have worked in psych hospitals for 13 years?
Has he answered this and I just haven’t seen it?
Alanzo
Don’t bullshit me. You are not sorry. Not even slightly. If you were truly sorry you would not continue doing this because you know very well that it is a total derail and very deliberate.
Hopefully Valkov and everyone else will just ignore you this time. That’s what I plan to do.
Well I am sorry for you and your thread here. I hope that more people will comment and discuss your thread. And I hope that my comments, and Val’s comments on my comments, become just a small fraction of the hundreds comments in this thread.
But just to clarify – Valkov has never explained to you or anyone else here how he could be a Scientologist since the 70’s and spent 13 years working in psych hospitals?
Sorry – just needed to clarify…
Alanzo
My apologies for derailing this thread.
But these INT Base guys like Mike Rinder and Dan Koon, and all the others recent escapees, are still lying and withholding vital information about what really went on behind the curtain at INT Base.
What they are NOT SAYING to Scientologists fills whole freight trains.
It would be nice if we could all just forget the past and live and let live. But the lies they told, the information they withheld, is still not being corrected. And because so many Scientologists who have recently left the church were kept from knowing any of this, they do not know what questions to ask and what the real history was.
And these guys still aren’t telling anyone, either.
So somebody’s got to be the asshole and ask, and probe, and agitate.
Once again, sorry for being the asshole.
But somebody’s gotta do it.
It might as well be Alanzo.
Alanzo
Okay, you’ve made your point. ‘Nuff said.
All righty.
It’s been quite a productive evening.
My work here is done.
Alanzo
I have been looking at this whole idea of goals. I have to say that I have come to dislike the very concept of goal setting. Maybe it is to do with the meaning of this concept. The etymology on it is downright weird.
goal (n.)
1530s, “end point of a race,” of uncertain origin. The noun gol appears once before this, in a poem from early 14c. and with an apparent sense of “boundary, limit.” Perhaps from Old English *gal “obstacle, barrier,” a word implied by gælan “to hinder.” Or from Old French gaule “a pole,” from Germanic; or a figurative use of Middle English gale “a way, course.”
What I find is that it doesn’t seem to work well when I am charting my direction in life, mainly because most of what I am seeking is not finite in nature. Maybe it works well for making widgets or building houses or putting money in the bank, but it seems to me that most of what I have come to understand as goals is really more of a metric — kind of like seeing a signpost on a journey that tells you the journey is over or like getting a medal for winning the race.
Has anyone else encountered this?
Maria, I have never liked the word at all. I’m gonna look it up in my English-Russain dictinary as I can’t even think how it translates.
Instead of “setting a goal”, I prefer to “wish upon a star”. 🙂
But I know people who set goals, as for weight loss, and do very well with it.
I think part of the problem for me with “setting goals” has to do with the “reverse-vector universe” factor. “Setting a goal” seems too much like ‘efforting’ which sabotages my postulate.
Yes, I have that postulate sabotaging sensation too!
The other thing that I notice is that it seems to somehow make a “box.” And pretty soon that box becomes paramount and then other things go to shit. What’s worse, with many big or long term goals, half the time you don’t really know what goes along with that outcome. It sounds just fine, but is it really something that you want to work on for years on the basis of no pain no gain, etc.?
On truth seeker type quests, it seems to me that I get partway to where I am trying to go and find out that it wasn’t how I thought it was in the first place, but along the way I didn’t stop to smell the roses.
Yeah, it’s like “New Year’s Resolutions”. A sure way to fail !
What works for me, I think, is to make a ‘wish’, really no more than a light thought, and move on. And let the “feedback mechanism” do its thing.
Could this be the ultimate automaticity ever created? The “super thetan rube goldberg universe creating machine.”
Maybe you are right. It works out to GET IT and then then you try to KEEP IT.
Maria: “Has anyone else encountered this?”
Chris: If there’s free will, then goal setting is about creating games to play. On the other hand, under determinism goal setting is a little like imagining which gravity in your vicinity is the strongest.
In my own model, I seem to be a composite. With limited free will and even more determinism around me, I do seem to be rattling around in a box run by an egg-timer.
@ Chris
Yes, there probably is something to this game playing effort. You decide on a goal. Get a house. Finally you get the perfect house. Then you say, I achieved my goal of getting a perfect house. Now that you’ve got the perfect house, how long do you have to keep the perfect house to say that you’ve got the perfect house. How long before it is no longer a perfect house? Was it ever a perfect house? Maybe you never achieved that goal at all!
Maybe along the way to getting a perfect house you realized you didn’t want a perfect house because you don’t to keep a perfect lawn for your perfect neighbors but would rather live in a tipi in the woods where there are no perfect lawns that have to be perfectly manicured every weekend. Oh also, wouldn’t you have to have imperfect houses to compare your perfect house to? Or maybe someone else has to have the imperfect house so you can demonstrate that you have a perfect house!
Maria: Maybe you never achieved that goal at all!
Chris: Well, without my making it too complex, without trying to achieve an absolute goal, I would invoke our earlier discussion where we defined truth as “relative, conditioned, and impermanent.”
“Gaming” at its best would be precisely defined. Games are within bubbles so to speak with clearly defined goals, barriers, purposes, freedoms, something to win, something to lose. Games are relative, conditioned and impermanent and in there somewhere to me seems to be a “truth.” Therefore, when we achieve the “perfect home,” we can truly know that and at that time, and for a time, by god it is perfect.
The way I come up with my composite idea of myself using part will and part determinism is to understand that “Chris” doesn’t make the rules except for a very narrow band of existence, and this bit of free will is a freedom given by a higher permission and not in the Scientology sense of the OT self. To be clear, that narrow band includes things like what flavor toothpaste to use and what color socks to wear and not what kind of weather there will be today. Outside that narrow band of free will exists a deterministic set of rules which rule and they rule absolutely. Within that narrow band of free will, gods play.
Again, trying to be clear, I understand that all that I just wrote describes yet another bubble which is relative, conditioned, and impermanent.
“What I find is that it doesn’t seem to work well when I am charting my direction in life, mainly because most of what I am seeking is not finite in nature. Maybe it works well for making widgets or building houses or putting money in the bank, but it seems to me that most of what I have come to understand as goals is really more of a metric — kind of like seeing a signpost on a journey that tells you the journey is over or like getting a medal for winning the race.”
Could those be understood as mest-goals?
Establishing a mest-goal starts a cycle of action, a game which binds you to its own particular universe, and which keeps interest to the degree that your own postulates begin to be twarted.
If I understood you well that is not even close to your true purposes.
I wonder how valid is the model of games to describe life, I like to think that life can be more than a game.
“Wisdom begins when the urge to understand games becomes greater than the urge to play them” Dennis H Stephens (Games Manual)
Rafael: “I wonder how valid is the model of games to describe life, I like to think that life can be more than a game.”
Chris: Please say more about this. What type of example could you name?
Dude, you are dragging me out of my ivory tower and not even offering me a beer? I ‘d say age is affecting you.
……….I can’t put it in words right now but I’m shure I can, Just let me sleep on it, I’ll get back to you
Rafael: I’ll get back to you
Chris: LOL no rush! Oh yeah, and I want to invite you over for a carne asada this weekend. uh, and can you bring some meat? hahaha
I’ll take a stab at description Rafael, what you have said is bordering where this path has moved to so far for me. So, here it is, as best I can given the limitations of the words available for description.
Life itself is a process. What’s exciting to me about the process is breaking through the paradigms that could be called “games.” I find that the framework of a game with a wienie, opponents, freedoms and barriers locks the process down instead of facilitating ever increasing awareness, cognition, realization. I am hopeful that this is infinite. By processing with an emphasis on expanding paradigms, breaking old paradigms, and transcending limitations, old and worn and ancient knowledge, the process will become freer and freer. To what end? Well, that is what I “look forward” to. Total, complete and fully cognizant release from fixed creationism. The trail is lit up by cognition and a sense of greater freedom and “intuition.”
Yes María, you explain it as best as words can do.
I do enjoy and play games in my life, but I´m not anymore seeking mainly winning for my team, or even the growth of the self part, I´m learning to live comfortably inside all the contradictions of life, I enjoy the self, but also the no-self, and mainly I try to understand the flow of life and contribute as directly as possible to its evolution with the hope that it will transcend ………. To what end? Well, that is what I “look forward” to. Total, complete and fully cognizant release from fixed creationism. The trail is lit up by cognition and a sense of greater freedom and “intuition.”……..Hehe
And Chris, that is the best way “I” can describe it, Hahaha!!
I´ll bring the meat and you the beer, looking forward for a weekend barbecue with the members of this blog!!!
Rafael
I get you and what you write is beautiful! ” I enjoy……..the no-self”…..” I try to understand the flow of life”……the Flow is not understandable ( I know that you get it)…….and “contribute as directly as possible…” You are doing it Rafael…..like your contributions……You/Life always comes through…….it does transcend……thank you for that!
Thanks Marianne I get you too 🙂
Maria
I am trying to put into words which is not very easy. This is what I sensed while reading your post the very first time. And, interestingly but not surprisingly, a discussion started on goals, games and purposes.
There is a difference between the meanings of “goal” and “purpose”. A goal implies a result, that is the fulfillment (in the universe) of an already created/envisioned end “picture in the mind” (by a separate person). e.g. I see in my mind an ideal house and entering into one/several mest games, I build it up. I am happy but it doesn’t give me a complete feeling of fulfillment. A purpose means decision and intention (in the instant of a clear decision there is no sense of a separate person). A decision is a kind of “no-thought land” (the agreement with the existing R is cut off) out of which a so far “latent” “flow” arises “creating” some new reality. Totally unexpected new reality. What came through while “reading” ” you ” was that you “operated” as the Flow (no separate ” I “) and it cut through some existing realities – creating a new one —-it is reposted by Geir, a discussion started on goals, purpose, creation, games. There is surely something here which deserves more attention…..reaching an illusion is not what it is about….
Yes, I have that sense too. I am sure it is why I keep “poking” at it! LOL!
Marildi
I am answering here because what I am looking at now fits here more. ( sure I will go on with 2x ).
Goal – Purpose. A goal implies effort to achieve an aim. E.g. my goal is to build a house. In the end I HAVE a house (mest product). My goal is to achieve “enlightenment”. I sit down and “use”
(effort is implied however light it is) a technique (tool). Breathing, focusing…whatever…to achieve the aim. This puts in time, (future) that is the “have” again. The best outcome will be that I “reach” either in the physical world or in my mind an illusion (mine, or borrowed). When I succeed, I am happy for some time. Some time.
A purpose is different. It’s rather an intention. As in Geir’s triangle, it consists of awareness, value and desire. For me it’s much closer to what we mean by present time. I want (desire) a house, my “full” awareness is on it as I deeply value it. Besides “planned” actions, a lot of “unplanned” opportunities will “pop up” in life, also “actions” that will help me to the “house” OR
OR ….”enlightenment”. In this second case, I sit down. No goal. There is awareness. “Unplanned” energy in the body (as a “have”, a “value”), thought in the mind ( it’s also a “have”, also a value) will appear. Both types are there because I was either pleased with something and I “want” (desire) it to be there forever, or I resisted it (out of dislike or fear).
So, I just sit and I am aware. Don’t “do” anything. Don’t “resist” anything…..I am just aware….aware….finally, all Values and Desires are “gone”. What remains is : the “sitting” as the “present time” and awareness. There is a kind of Flow which starts to “guide” action now….there is no need for further “sitting” as each second is a “sitting” (present time and awareness). As the Flow gets “stronger”, it reaches “further and further”….it’s a LIVE flow whose “purpose” is just to flow and perceive. LIFE.
As I see it, a “tool” one chooses always “resonates” with the person’s energy. The “purerer” the energy is, the “lighter” tool the person will choose. Finally, there is no tool and a free use of any tool (Geir – tools). How do you see this goal-purpose question?
Marildi
A question: Can it be that All Goals are “borrowed”? I have no idea….but if so, that may have to do with valences, and also the filter.