Mythopoetics

[Guest guest]

P: Lewis! This is awesome, my man! The only thing to

underline is that this gap, ignorance, or unknowing

, at one point, is realized as a center felt as the only existent.

Please, excuse the language, I'm pointing to: the hole

is seen(felt) as the living whole. The Hole which is the Whole

swallows all. What a black hole! I'm falliiiing!

 

Pete

>

 

> ---

>> -

> The " gap " is the complete inability to ever directly access whatever,

> however, whyever, whenever, whoever....

>

> Engaging the gap is fully realizing, as state, the complete inability

> to ever directly access whatever, however, whyever, whenever,

> whoever....

>

> It is being " the gap " " the hole. " That is to say, not avoiding,

> escaping, hiding, denying.... and realizing this utter inability to

> ever directly access whatever, however, whyever, whenever,

> whoever....our made up reality.

>

> Herein there are no props, crutches, disguises, masks, ideologies,

> cosmologies, psychologies, philosophies and " realities " created from

> the poles. Instead all of that become paraphenalia for living and are

> no longer mistaken for real and unreal and all of that that served to

> cover and blind the sight of the the unalterable fact of the utter,

> total inability to ever know directly fully the what whatever, however,

> whyever, whenever, whoever....

>

> When this is, there is none of the below as reality or no reality

> because those are all created ontologies and assumptions concerning

> the never directly accessible whatever, however, whyever, whenever,

> whoever....We use them.

>

> |nothingness |becoming |thingness |nonthingness

> |nonexistence|un-becoming|existence |ineffableness

> |non-being |becoming |being |mystery

>

>

> We are always in the gap and in all the rest as created inseparably. If

> the gap has never been fully engaged as state, it is mistakenly sensed

> as and considered to be " ignorance. " Something is not known, something

> is lacking because appearance and form are impinging and so the

> whatever, however, whyever, whenever, whoever.....is raised as a demand

> to go on, we need a format to act and so this is answered with

> hypotheses that are formed about those arising and dissipating

> appearances and form. The problem has been the hypostasis of the

> hypotheses. We take fabrications to be real or unreal, existing or

> nonexisting.

>

> Stories are drawn to pacify or end this " ignorance " to cover it, fill

> it which in fact can never be quenched given the gap, the complete

> inability to ever directly access whatever, however, whyever, whenever,

> whoever....There is always the tension, the peeking out, the anxiety.

> We can then realize we have been fooling ourselves and in that

> realization stop and live without ignorance of that inability, of what

> we are fully.

>

> The never ending circle of " personal tomfoolery " is engaged because of

> the sense of this " superificial ignorance " and the attempt to quell

> that which cannot be quelled in that way and believing that somehow it

> can be done, to reach the pinnacle, see it all directly while not

> realizing what we are doing. It is trying to get an oil stain out using

> oil.

>

> This is the " ignorance " that arises as requisite condition for the

> arising of fabrications as Buddha so succintly pointed out.

>

> What Buddha never said directly was how this " ignorance " arose.

>

> This " ignorance " arises when the condition of non-recognition and

> non-realization of the complete inability to ever directly access

> whatever, however, whyever, whenever, whoever....as state (not as idea

> or concept) in action, word and deed. There is nothing mystical in

> this. It is a simple fact, a testable inability.

>

> The conceptual devices of emptiness, dependent origination lead one to

> this realization. But since that is interpreted in so many different

> ways it is hard to use.

>

> Test it out.

>

> Lewis