Scared / Concerned about the possibility of mishaps

[Ceejay]

Looking after a baby, I notice that I need to be very careful as there is lots of ways the kid can hurt itself. Like falling from the cot if left unmonitored. Like getting hit by some hard object while the baby is playing/exploring. Like poking the fingers into the electrical socket. Like swallowing something poisonous or choke-able.

 

You got the point. This is not just about the baby. These sorts of dangers are everywhere for all of us. But I am especially sensitive to these aspects of life.

 

This is a silly question which does not need to be answered because the answer is an obvious yes. But I'll ask it anyway - Is this how it is for everybody? Or are there people who does not think life is filled with potential objects/situations which could kill/injure us?

[Phil]

What a great question. 

 

‘How it is’ is subjective & interpretational.

Subjective in that it’s about how an objective reality (it) is for a subject.

Interpretational in that it’s an interpretation of an objective reality.

Inherent in the interpretation; ‘how it is’… is the presumption that there is, a subject and an objective reality.

That is what fundamentally feels off to that which is aware of and feeling the interpretation. 

That which is aware of & feeling the interpretation is neither a subject nor objective reality. 

It feels off in the same way being white feels off to Clayton Bigsby, as do all of the actions, behaviors & interactions which follow, being white. 

 

 

The secondary interpretation is about that ‘off’, and the interpretation which explains yet does not reconcile, is that there is subject which is scared / concerned.

What the subject is thought or said to be scared or concerned about, is the possibilities of, an objective reality. 

 

 

If there is no subject, there is no one which is scared or concerned, there is only an interpretation that there is, which feels off. 

If there is no objective reality, there is nothing one could be scared of or concerned about, and again there is only an interpretation which feels off. 

 

 

But none of this subjective objective interpretation stuff matters as it’s all conceptual.

All that matters is feeling. 

 

To not feel the offness of scared or concerned, is to not experience the interpretation that there is a subject, which knows ‘how it is’, in regard to an objective reality, and is therein scared & concerned. So one might while one might not. Interpretations are like snowflakes. Apparently or experientially diverse, while all the same snow in actuality. 

 

To continue to experience the offness, is to experience a belief loop.

What is believed to be felt? Scared & concerned.

What is believed to feel scared & concerned? A subject. 

 

To no longer experience the belief loop and no longer feel the offness of that interpretation, is to acknowledge what is actually felt, in regard to how the interpretation feels. 

[Ceejay]

On 2/24/2024 at 4:19 AM, Phil said:

That which is aware of & feeling the interpretation is neither a subject nor objective reality. 

Then what is it? Clearly, happening is happening.

 

On 2/24/2024 at 4:19 AM, Phil said:

The secondary interpretation is about that ‘off’, and the interpretation which explains yet does not reconcile, is that there is subject which is scared / concerned.

Agreed. The subject is presumed in the question and is needed to even raise the question, or the story (interpretation).

 

On 2/24/2024 at 4:19 AM, Phil said:

What is believed to be felt? Scared & concerned.

What is believed to feel scared & concerned? A subject.

So labelling is the problem? Labelling something as "scary" and "someone" as "scared"?

 

It that is dropped, the belief loop is gone and there is no need to make up a "someone" who "knows how it is" or could know.

On 2/24/2024 at 4:19 AM, Phil said:

To no longer experience the belief loop and no longer feel the offness of that interpretation, is to acknowledge what is actually felt, in regard to how the interpretation feels. 

So feel the contrast between the two... and this will result in the natural dropping of the "interpretation", which is what creates misalignment... is what you are saying?

[Phil]

8 hours ago, Ceejay said:

Then what is it? Clearly, happening is happening.

If happening is of object and subject (“happening to me”) said happening is not actually happening, and is an apparent interpretation awareness is aware of and feeling as well. 

 

8 hours ago, Ceejay said:

Agreed. The subject is presumed in the question and is needed to even raise the question, or the story (interpretation).

Yes! Maybe more so, is the very ‘story’ / interpretation which arises / appears… and in accordance with direct experience (should any one care to check) isn’t present / does not exist. 

 

8 hours ago, Ceejay said:

So labelling is the problem? Labelling something as "scary" and "someone" as "scared"?

“Problem” is a label. That there is a problem is an experience of believing a thought which is an appearance (not any ‘actual real thing’). There is only one “true flavor” of believing the label “problem” and in sincerity, honesty & integrity it is - ‘for me’. 

 

“I’m scared” is a belief you know something about yourself (that I am scared).  

 

vs

 

“the emotion fear is felt”… is an acknowledgement of an emotion which is already experienced, and the acknowledgment is non-aversion from feeling. 

 

8 hours ago, Ceejay said:

It that is dropped, the belief loop is gone and there is no need to make up a "someone" who "knows how it is" or could know.

Yes! As the emotion which is already felt anyways is acknowledged, the ‘separate self of thoughts’ is dropped / attention is withdrawn from thoughts and redirected ‘back to’ to feeling. Aversion was experienced, and resolved in non-aversion. 

 

Even more so… a belief loop isn’t a subject & object in the first place, but is an apparent belief or an assumed believing, and therein - wasn’t / isn’t / is never actually even some thing happening, but is in fact - nothing happening!

 

8 hours ago, Ceejay said:

So feel the contrast between the two... and this will result in the natural dropping of the "interpretation", which is what creates misalignment... is what you are saying?

Yes. Simply put - acknowledge an emotion. 

 

The ego mind, which isn’t a thing and is just a communicative reference, will come up with endless thoughts in aversion from the simple acknowledge of an emotion. ‘It’ is essentially, in ostensible biblical terminology, the devil, and will even resort to claims of there being knowing and understanding. Anything to maintain an illusion of separation. 

 

 

[Robed Mystic]

On 2/23/2024 at 11:30 AM, Ceejay said:

Looking after a baby, I notice that I need to be very careful as there is lots of ways the kid can hurt itself. Like falling from the cot if left unmonitored. Like getting hit by some hard object while the baby is playing/exploring. Like poking the fingers into the electrical socket. Like swallowing something poisonous or choke-able.

 

You got the point. This is not just about the baby. These sorts of dangers are everywhere for all of us. But I am especially sensitive to these aspects of life.

 

This is a silly question which does not need to be answered because the answer is an obvious yes. But I'll ask it anyway - Is this how it is for everybody? Or are there people who does not think life is filled with potential objects/situations which could kill/injure us?

It's really a matter of striking a balance.  You don't want to walk through life on tippy toes, watching for glass.  That won't allow you to feel the ground.   At the same time, don't always keep your feet on the ground - be watchful- and step around the debris to protect your feet.  Yet don't tippy toe the entire way.  Strike a delicate balance.  Enjoy life but at the same time take care to protect it.  Sometimes - it's OK to let loose - for if you don't, you will never get a chance to actually breath the air in.  Sometimes exposing yourself to a little danger can lead to growth.   

But yes - danger is all around you at all times.   Mortality dictates that.  And yet - with all of that danger, you are still here, all those years later.  Have you wondered why that is?  Have you ever wondered why the dream is still running?  Perhaps it is not just random.

[Ceejay]

52 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

And yet - with all of that danger, you are still here, all those years later.  Have you wondered why that is?  Have you ever wondered why the dream is still running?  Perhaps it is not just random.

Yes, I have. My mother said it's because of a particular diety's blessing that I am alive, after all that I have done.

 

Synchronicity is present too.

[Ceejay]

55 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Sometimes - it's OK to let loose - for if you don't, you will never get a chance to actually breath the air in. 

Also, ones' BP would be high and there is a greater risk of dying from a heart attack if one is so uptight all the time. Thankfully, it's not my nature to be uptight and things are bettering as I meditate every day and stay sober.

[Robed Mystic]

5 minutes ago, Ceejay said:

Yes, I have. My mother said it's because of a particular diety's blessing that I am alive, after all that I have done.

 

Synchronicity is present too.

Your mother is imaginary .  She is merely you giving you a reason for why something is.  No.  You have eluded danger thus far simply because you are God dreaming up this world.   You will die when the dream ends - when you as the higher self decide to wake up.  

Now - that is on a metaphysical level- on the dream level -  by all means - take caution or you will suffer the consequences of the laws dictated by the dream or web that you as God weaved.  You will face them here because you have limited yourself to do that- so that you could feel a reality.

Edited February 25 by Robed Mystic

[Ceejay]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Maybe more so, is the very ‘story’ / interpretation which arises / appears… and in accordance with direct experience (should any one care to check) isn’t present / does not exist. 

Yes, you are correct. Because the story essentially a thought, which is insubstantial.

 

Sometimes during meditation, I would have some judgmental thought about someone and it does not feel aligned, hence an out of alignment feeling occurs. But the thought/story/passing-judgement itself vanishes quickly from memory as I become aware of it, leaving only the lingering feeling-impression behind.

 

When this happens, do I need to rethink what I thought a moment ago which created the discord in order to remember the story, so that I could question it.... or is it better to leave what has left behind, and continue to focus on the feeling state?

 

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Even more so… a belief loop isn’t a subject & object in the first place, but is an apparent belief or an assumed believing, and therein - wasn’t / isn’t / is never actually even some thing happening, but is in fact - nothing happening!

As unreal as the horns of a hare, as is said in Ribhu Gita.

 

1 hour ago, Phil said:

The ego mind, which isn’t a thing and is just a communicative reference, will come up with endless thoughts in aversion from the simple acknowledge of an emotion. ‘It’ is essentially, in ostensible biblical terminology, the devil, and will even resort to claims of there being knowing and understanding. Anything to maintain an illusion of separation.

IMO, this is very insightful and true, what you said. A little seed of aversion grows into a tree of aversion, if this point is overlooked. Thanks for the solid pointing.

[Ceejay]

11 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Your mother is imaginary .

Insightful.

 

12 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

She is merely you giving you a reason for why something is. 

Maybe that is what she believes, or likes to interpret it.

 

13 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

You will face them here because you have limited yourself to do that

But I don't remember myself limiting myself to experience reality? 

 

Is it like the TV show Severance, where I, as God, has chosen to inhabit a dream world as a dream character, with some "amnesia" into the mix?

[Phil]

9 hours ago, Ceejay said:

do I need to rethink what I thought a moment ago

No. There isn’t a thinker in the first place. That’s how sneaky thought is. Very slippery slope. 😅 

 

9 hours ago, Ceejay said:

focus on the feeling state

Just feel. Let the mind clear. 🤍

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ceejay]

@Phil Okay, thanks.

[Robed Mystic]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:38 AM, Ceejay said:

Insightful.

 

Maybe that is what she believes, or likes to interpret it.

 

But I don't remember myself limiting myself to experience reality? 

 

Is it like the TV show Severance, where I, as God, has chosen to inhabit a dream world as a dream character, with some "amnesia" into the mix?

Because you used the ability to forget.  If you remembered it would spoil everything.  Memory is only good while you are being a specific form.  When you change forms you use the power of forgetting so that you can step into the new form completely.  

 

Yes I'm eluding to reincarnation and also God in general.  God places itself into its own dream and then forgets it is God.   Just like when you play a video game you kinda forget your current reality and immerse yourself into the world of the game. 

Edited February 26 by Robed Mystic

[Ceejay]

5 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

Just like when you play a video game you kinda forget your current reality and immerse yourself into the world of the game. 

I think it was Peter Ralston who said "Reality is an infinite sandbox".

[Robed Mystic]

4 minutes ago, Ceejay said:

I think it was Peter Ralston who said "Reality is an infinite sandbox".

Think of Infinite sand or clay.  All of the shapes, or forms, are already there- without needing to be built.  You can just see them already with your Minds eye without needing to carve them out.  I love that.   But that's Infinity  that is the collapse of the form and formlessness duality.

Edited February 26 by Robed Mystic

[Ceejay]

12 minutes ago, Robed Mystic said:

the collapse of the form and formlessness duality

Form is formlessness.

Formlessness is form.