Monday, March 8, 2010

the "Functioning of Totality"

EVERYTHING that "you're doing"
is IT.
you think you're doing
"something else."


  1. Sure, it must be. I had considered adding your point to the post, but opted for succinctness, instead.

  2. Succinctness is good. I even like the flavor of the word!

    Your post got me pondering again about 'what we think we are doing as being also IT'. I can't help but feel it is a doorway to liberation, the threshold of which I have been playing upon lately. Something about that seems real 'big' somehow.

  3. Have you included in your pondering the title,"the Functioning of Totality?" It's a phrase I'm borrowing from Wayne Liquorman, who uses it to point beyond our sense of being individual agents. Directly realizing that "our" functioning is an aspect of the "Total", IS "liberation from the prison of individuality."

  4. An interesting angle that is new to me, as in seeing the conceptual as totality itself. Maybe it's so close that it hasn't been seen as such, but rejected as false because of the stickiness of identification of an individual separation from wholeness. So perhaps only the identification of a separate self is the stickiness, and not the conceptual. This would make sense as just a simple twist of perception, not some unmanageable landscape of concept that must be broken free of.

  5. It seems to boil down to a fine line of....nothing...:-D

  6. Hi NPZ, sorry it took me so long to get back to you; I'm still not quite back to full strength yet.
    I'm not sure what you're referring to by "the conceptual." But of course, anything conceptual is part of "Totality"(everything is, even what is considered false, in some contexts). If I'm understanding you, I agree that it is the perception and conception as a separate self that is cause of apparent limitation(stickiness). It is characteristic of it to perceive/conceive objects separate from itself(another object). As you suggest in your last comment, no thing(and no one) exists independently.

  7. Good question. Especially considering that I don't really know what the fuck I'm talking about! :-P

    I guess for me perception is the naked truth of what is seen in consciousness manifestation by the very absolute itself (all ultimately the same of course). Perception can go into infinite direction of detail. A never ending cascade of "WOW! This is what's happening, as it is, without a kink. Flowing, as in uninterrupted by concept"

    Concept then would be to me the point of perception grasped. As in, this is a snapshot of perception as it relates to so-called "other points of perception", in which it appears there is an individual self (point of perception), in time and space, chopping up perception into 'past, present, and future'. Making a cause and effect relationship within (and creating it out of) the cosmic event of perception. Making a story out of NO THING.

  8. So concepts do their thing, so to speak, in mental image as aspects of experience in the apparent duality of being manifest, but there is no grasping of conceptual thought. As in, thoughts come and go as equal aspects of the whole, along with perception through all senses, and also subtlety beyond them, and there is not any necessity of an iota of separation-identification breathed. Nonduality exists both as oneness, and appearing as two, but separateness needn't be known as any thing substantial because it is seen as conceptually fleeting.

    Surely something is missing in my conceptual construct here.

  9. Of course. As Tor Norretranders wrote,"Knowledge can be derived from the world; the world cannot be derived from knowledge."
    On the other hand, I like your "construct." It reminds me of "thoughts self-liberating" (a subtle Tibetan Dzogchen pointer).

  10. You're very kind. It just looks like a mess of words to me and brings about confusion. Which is good because now I can process it (slowly throw it all away) and be quiet for a spell.