Guest guest Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 <snip> > > > > > > You are quite clear. I find no disagreement with > > your > > > description here. > > > > > > This may be a duh for you, but for me the question > > > arises as to what the earnestness is in the > > service > > > of. Or, to what is the earnestness applied? For > > the > > > record I am not using applied in the sense of > > effort. > > > > In a sense the earnestness in in service of itself. > > It is in the service of whatever it is that " is > > earnest " ... call it the " I am " if you like... > > > > In another post I wrote: > > " Earnestness, as he speaks of it, is the ultimate > > intangible. > > It does not even exist, except as a burning > > unspeakable. > > Know that burning and know the fire that can never > > be > > extinguished. Know that burning and know that the > > means > > and the end are one. " > > > I think it is true that the means and the end are one > as are cause and effect where there is only an > illusory time lapse. Why do 'I' have a concern that > earnestness might be misplaced or misdirected? Do you have a concern that the question you raise *here* might be misplaced or misdirected? The " inquiry " is one of cutting through the lines/ layers of thought, of getting to the root, the source of what is arising as a thought, as a question, as a desire etc. To cut through the lines of thought is to go past the meaning of the words to the energies, the vibrations out of which the question arises. When you go that deep you are surely closer to realizing " who " is asking than if you seek verbal answers, which can go on endlessly labyrinthine... > > > > That is why it doesn't matter what the " method " is > > as long as there is complete earnestness. > > And note that complete earnestness = complete > > honesty. > > > > And not how all of this boils down to an utter > > directness... > > This is likely where the concern over misplacement or > misdirection resides. From the quote you shared I > think you will agree it all pertains to layers or > levels and one does not have sight into all of them at > the same time so that honesty would seem at times > obscured. Is it enough to be willing to see all? How > can one be certain willingness is completely honest? > That was supposed to be: > > And *note* how all of this boils down to an utter > > directness... I know if my intent is *essentially* honest. And yes it is enough to be willing to see all. You know if you are going into it naked, vulnerably. You just know if that is the case. And if so then you are open to true change. It is not about being *perfect* in the inquiry, it is about having the courage to " see all " as you say. > > > > > You seem to be saying here earnestness drives > > > de-conditioning. > > Oh, I really like that! > > Yes, it is what pops the bubble of containment. > > > > > Marc will like 'bubble'. > > > > > > > > > > If that is correct are you then > > > suggesting that conditioning actually > > dematerializes > > > and results in energetic change via earnestness? > > yes... > > conditioning is just energy caught up in closed > > loops. > > When those closed loops are broken up then the > > energy > > is liberated. > > > > Bill > > > > I agree about 'energy caught up in closed loops.' I > only wonder if at a denser level that energy is a > thought form(s) and it seems a necessary step to > recognize the originating thought form. > > What do you think? Not necessary to recognize any original thought form. At that dense level it is not thought anymore. Nisargadatta talks about ornaments and gold. The thought forms are the ornaments. That dense energy is the gold. The ornaments are not of interest (something the mind has a hard time hearing!). At that dense level the energy is that of beingness. It is not something that one " figures out " . One comes to simply *be* it. Bill Nis on ornaments and gold: Just like gold made into ornaments has no advantage over gold dust, except when the mind makes it so, so are we one in being -- we differ only in appearance. We discover it by being earnest, by searching, enquiring, questioning daily and hourly, by giving one's life to this discovery. - I Am That, ch 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 > --- pliantheart <pliantheart wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > You are quite clear. I find no disagreement > > with > > > > your > > > > > description here. > > > > > > > > > > This may be a duh for you, but for me the > > question > > > > > arises as to what the earnestness is in the > > > > service > > > > > of. Or, to what is the earnestness applied? > > For > > > > the > > > > > record I am not using applied in the sense of > > > > effort. > > > > > > > > In a sense the earnestness in in service of > > itself. > > > > It is in the service of whatever it is that " is > > > > earnest " ... call it the " I am " if you like... > > > > > > > > In another post I wrote: > > > > " Earnestness, as he speaks of it, is the > > ultimate > > > > intangible. > > > > It does not even exist, except as a burning > > > > unspeakable. > > > > Know that burning and know the fire that can > > never > > > > be > > > > extinguished. Know that burning and know that > > the > > > > means > > > > and the end are one. " > > > > > > > > > I think it is true that the means and the end are > > one > > > as are cause and effect where there is only an > > > illusory time lapse. Why do 'I' have a concern > > that > > > earnestness might be misplaced or misdirected? > > > > Do you have a concern that the question you raise > > *here* might be misplaced or misdirected? > > No, I meant personally as I think it is a mistake to > be too certain on a thought-level. > > I am reasonably certain my questions may become > misplaced, misdirected, or misunderstood *here*. > Cute... but you seem to have missed my point. My point was that if you have a concern about earnestness being misplaced/misdirected, then shouldn't you also apply it to that concern as well? Perhaps your concern about earnestness being misplaced/misdirected is itself misplaced/ misdirected. > > > > The " inquiry " is one of cutting through the lines/ > > layers of thought, of getting to the root, the > > source > > of what is arising as a thought, as a question, > > as a desire etc. To cut through the lines of thought > > is to go past the meaning of the words to the > > energies, > > the vibrations out of which the question arises. > > When you go that deep you are surely closer to > > realizing " who " is asking than if you seek verbal > > answers, which can go on endlessly labyrinthine... > > If the only thing sought is realization of 'who' is > asking, it seems like a waste of time to 'cut through > lines of thought'. > > Perhaps one must apply earnestness to the Matryoshka > Nesting Doll before arriving at the Salt Doll. You can't be thinking in terms of a/the " goal " ... it is a going earnestly into whatever is " there " , just digging deeper, regardless... When thinking in terms of a goal then the mind is running the show and the show is going nowhere. > > > > That is why it doesn't matter what the " method " > > is > > > > as long as there is complete earnestness. > > > > And note that complete earnestness = complete > > > > honesty. > > > > > > > > And not how all of this boils down to an utter > > > > directness... > > > > > > This is likely where the concern over misplacement > > or > > > misdirection resides. From the quote you shared I > > > think you will agree it all pertains to layers or > > > levels and one does not have sight into all of > > them at > > > the same time so that honesty would seem at times > > > obscured. Is it enough to be willing to see all? > > How > > > can one be certain willingness is completely > > honest? > > > > > That was supposed to be: > > > > And *note* how all of this boils down to an > > utter > > > > directness... > > > > > > > I know if my intent is *essentially* honest. > > > > And yes it is enough to be willing to see all. > > > > You know if you are going into it naked, vulnerably. > > You just know if that is the case. And if so then > > you are open to true change. It is not about being > > *perfect* in the inquiry, it is about having the > > courage > > to " see all " as you say. > > > > I think back on all of the times 'I' thought 'I' had > found *it " . In those times 'I' thought 'I' was honest > and willing, indeed, perhaps too willing. In > retrospect I was honest and willing, but there were > things I could not see. See? And yet you grew from that. There is no being perfect. When the inquiry is honest then there is no more to be added to it. Honest is honest. <snip> > > > > > > I agree about 'energy caught up in closed loops.' > > I > > > only wonder if at a denser level that energy is a > > > thought form(s) and it seems a necessary step to > > > recognize the originating thought form. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > Not necessary to recognize any original thought > > form. > > At that dense level it is not thought anymore. > > Interesting. If I understand you are saying the > energy is denser closer to truth. I see it as more > refined, 'light'er cleansed. It is both... At first it is felt as very dense... but when fully merged with it is lightness itself. > > > > > > Nisargadatta talks about ornaments and gold. > > The thought forms are the ornaments. That dense > > energy is the gold. The ornaments are not of > > interest > > (something the mind has a hard time hearing!). > > At that dense level the energy is that of beingness. > > It is not something that one " figures out " . One > > comes to simply *be* it. > > > > Bill > > > > Nis on ornaments and gold: > > > > Just like gold made into ornaments has no advantage > > over gold dust, except when the mind makes it so, > > so are we one in being -- we differ only in > > appearance. We discover it by being earnest, by > > searching, enquiring, questioning daily and hourly, > > by giving one's life to this discovery. > > > > - I Am That, ch 2 > > > How about fools gold? Fool's Gold is getting distracted by thought. Bill > Noel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.