Re: What? How's that again? --Jan - -Holy Cow

[Guest guest]

" " wrote:

> Jan, you wrote in a later response to Andy: " ...I did discover that I

> really like me doing exactly what I'm doing... "

>

> Definitely. It comes through clearly, Jan, that you have a great

> gift for asking questions and it gives you joy. This is what I mean

> by saying that it's your personality's choice.

Please know that my inquiry over 's face lift was a wonderful way

for me to arrive at the inquiry - words should be in sync with

her actions. They shouldn't, they aren't for me, her truth is her

truth. It was a great aha moment for me to realize that when I accept

the person in totality, I open myself up for another abandonment

moment and I'm in their business believing their truth instead of

leaning into me - it's the same truth, just looks different over here

- tailor made for me.

>

> Jan wrote in response to my post: " In fact I find myself frustrated

> with posts that simply say drop it all - now! What's wrong with

> you? Drop it now!!!! "

>

> I didn't tell you to drop it,

I don't recall you saying this either so this statement was not

directed at you.

and I didn't say there was anything

> wrong with you. Those words are your own contribution, Jan, because

> you seem to assume that if I appear to have a view different from

> yours, then I must be attacking. (All this is mere dualistic

> appearance -- not truth or reality.)

Never felt the attack from you . I sometimes perceive

defensive moves from others on this board - myself included.

>

> I'm questioning (and I know I'm in Jan's business here -- but will

> get out of it soon), whether or not you really do want to reach the

> end of an inquiry.

I felt I did reach the end of an inquiry....

>

> (And no, I don't think you " should " or " should not " -- but do I think

> neutral observation plays a role, and it becomes possible to observe

> when one isn't feeling stressed out.)

This has been my experience also.

>

> I observed that you had demolished over the face lift, but were

> not content to stop there. You also needed (or so it appeared) to

> convince everyone else who ventured an alternate opinion that your

> inquiry was superior to theirs. (And, sweetly, most of them

> complimented you for it. One even apologized eloquently.)

No, I'm only into " seeing " It myself. What others do is their

business. The back-and-forth exchange was valuable for me - to me.

>

> These exchanges were entertaining, and maybe we were learning inquiry

> methods (although I doubt that most learning was actually about " The

> Work " -- but more like inquiry for inquiry's sake). I am not saying

> any of this " should " or " should not " have taken place. I'm simply

> watching. I was content to watch silently until you equated love

> with addiction.

If I remember correctly, I stated that MOST love = addiction. Not

" Love " . Most love as I have experienced it is personality needs being

met.

>

> Are these really the same? Results of my inquiry say no, but it's a

> subjective position -- knowable and experiential, maybe not

> scientifically provable.

>

> If we were to delve further into where you and I might differ

> over " love = addiction, " I'd say that we are probably operating from

> different contextual fields. We could play ping-pong. We might have

> fun analyzing it like a couple of dogs wrangling over a bone. But we

> wouldn't be doing " The Work. "

>

> I'm being simple-minded here. But for " The Work " to help people live

> their lives (which I naively assume to be its purpose), the object of

> inquiry is to effect a change in perception. Change how you see the

> world, and miracles can occur.

I agree.

>

> The point where an individual shifts how she views the world is the

> end of that particular inquiry, as far as " The Work " is concerned.

> To keep on probing, pursuing the " reality " of every term used in the

> argument, is to start doing philosophy. Despite what I've been

> reading here on this message board recently, I'm pretty sure

> that " The Work " is not about philosophy. And it's not about Zen.

I don't know. You appear to be labeling something - I'm hearing a

should in all this...

>

> You are right to call me on my statement that by tapping into the

> ONE -- the All That Is, the " I AM " , the field of Consciousness

> (really hoping to avoid hang-up over terms), stories can vanish

> without having to work through them one by one.

>

> But this is only if someone chooses that method. By no means is it

> required. There is no law saying this is the way.

>

> However, I do disagree with a recent statement here on this board (I

> forget who wrote it) that we are always either attaching or

> inquiring.

I think this is a quote.

My inquiry tells me this duality is not true. There is a

> third way: we can release. We can inquire until we achieve a shift

> in perception, at which point we can then release. OR, without the

> detailed inquiry in every instance, we can simply release.

I agree.

>

> Jan, in regard to tapping into love you wrote, " If I knew how to do

> that, I think I would do that. Simply saying tap into the love

> doesn't automatically transport me there. Intellectually I know of

> what you are speaking - connecting to THAT nonstop would be a nice

> place to be indeed. "

>

> Can we locate a mutually identified context from which to conduct a

> dialog? I'm feeling my way slowly, knowing that we may misunderstand

> each other's terms at first. However, I do grasp that if anyone

> experiences a problem, it helps to heed Einstein's warning. Einstein

> said, (paraphrasing), " We cannot solve a problem with the same level

> of conscious with which we created the problem. "

I am familiar with this Einstein quote (paraphrased) and agree.

>

> A leap to a new consciousness level -- that's the prerequiste. Only

> you know the nature of your experience, so in speaking of this I can

> only allude to my own. If I created problems for myself in the past

> (or even worse, believed that other people were my problem), I'm not

> going to be able to solve anything or even shift my perception very

> far using the same mind-set of the past -- which now simply reviews,

> replays, or re-interprets what happened before. No matter how

> sophisticated my questioning, as long as personal consciousness

> remains at the same level, I'll not likely succeed in a shift of

> perception large enough to create genuine release. Or, whenever I do

> extinguish a few old stories, more spring up to take their place.

>

> Raising personal consciousness to a new level requires among other

> things, a full realization -- emotionally, spiritually, and not just

> intellectually -- of how I am NOT my mind. I am not my thoughts.

> One way I come to experience this truth is by watching my thoughts,

> and as I watch I realize that the vast majority (98-99%) of my mind

> is actually silent. And yet most of us spend virtually all of our

> time paying attention to only the 1-2% of what goes on in the mind.

> The noisy words that take up all our attention are not our real

> selves.

>

> Think of your mind as the ocean, and your thoughts as flying fish.

> Keep your focus on the ocean as a whole. From time to time you see a

> fish fly up here, another fly up there. At points, a school of fish

> may jump raucously at the same time. Yet, keeping attention on the

> mind as a whole, seeing it as the ocean, opens the way for a paradigm

> shift. We are not our thoughts, and the lives we lead are not the

> words we say about it. (And in time, we'll come to realize how the

> watching actually does itself, there is no " I " doing it.)

I like this story, definition, very similar to explanation from Onions

to Pearls and Surprised by Grace.

>

> The 1-2% of word and image thoughts flying through the mind are

> linear. The other 98-99% of the ocean of mind is holistic. As

> individual events (fish) occur, I may need to do " The Work " simply to

> shift my attention back onto the ocean as a whole. Yet, if I try to

> transform my life fish-by-fish, the liner process goes on ad

> infinitum. If I want to raise my consciousness, I must raise the

> water level of the ocean as a whole.

>

> Point to keep in mind: Byron did not achieve total

> transformation of her life by means of inquiry. She benefited from

> an intervention which brought about a healing. Then, healed,

> became able to help other people by means of the inquiry. The four

> questions help us with our fish (thoughts).

>

> But is inquiry the only tool, or even the best, tool for

> transformation of the total life? Does inquiry raise the level of

> the ocean (consciousness)? Jan, you are more gifted at inquiry than

> most. And since you thrive on inquiry, you'll definitely want to

> puruse it. Maybe you'll even find it enough for your transformation

> and transcendence.

I hooted at this paragraph!!!! I'm SOOOOO ecclectic in my approach.

Everything I do is moving towards creating an opportunity for me to

drop it all....my dance is no different from yours - does not only our

stories make it appear different?

>

> You wrote: " When I ask myself, what is blocking myself from

> experiencing love non-stop...an unforgiveness appears, a judgement

> appears, etc. I inquire. "

>

> Good, you are right to inquire, and free to pursue the process which

> I hope leads you to a release and that you move forward and live your

> life fully present in the NOW.

>

> For me personally (only a choice), I know holistically through a rise

> in consciousness level that forgiveness vibrates at such an

> infinitely higher frequency than any lack of it or of any judgment.

> The instant I sense hint of any lower vibration thought arising, I

> release immediately -- without need for processing anything in

> detail. No justification, no inquiry, no story. Just release.

Thank you for sharing this, it is not my experience unless I've been

on raw food for over 20 days. I delight that it is yours because it

is a pretty fabulous mode of being.

>

> The answer I've tried to give here can only partial. I'm aware, that

> healing of deep wounds requires that each of us have had our story

> adequately heard. If there is a wound story, tell it three times,

> each time to an emphatic listener -- and automatically you'll be

> healed. The story vanishes.

Not sure about the magic number three, but I agree with the rest.

>

> If at any point inquiry does not give substanial release, you're

> either nurturing the intellect and doing philosphy instead of " The

> Work, " or perhaps the story isn't being heard properly.

I don't know - I only know that whatever it is - it's perfect and it

gives me great joy because I do experience delicious perceptual changes.

>

> Such as it is, this is the best I can do at this particular moment.

>

Thanks for this response. I appreciated your views.

Blessings - Jan

[Guest guest]

" Byron did not achieve total transformation of her life by

means of inquiry. She benefited from an intervention which brought

about a healing. "

Hi ,

Yes, it's clear from her account in Loving What Is that Kt's metanoia

arrived in the night. I'm interested in what you mean by 'an

intervention' and would love to know more,

cheers, Tim

PS My interest at the moment is in the question " Who is inquiring? "

That's what I'd really like to know!

[Guest guest]

" As might reply, " Who cares, who would like to know who is

inquiring? "

Steve D.

Nice one, Jo :-) Steve D - who cares what Kt says? :-0 Tim

[Guest guest]

Dear Tim:

I don't know?

Regards, Steve D.

> " As might reply, " Who cares, who would like to know who is

> inquiring? "

>

> Steve D.

>

> Nice one, Jo :-) Steve D - who cares what Kt says? :-0 Tim