Conversation Marcus with R. Miller

 

Conversation Richard Miller (Never not here) and Marcus Stegmaier on article ‘Real’


Hi Marcus,

Both you and I, (and the Doctor) live in a world inputted by our 5 senses. We keep our appointments within the thought of time, and we connect the dots of our whole logic structure of this transitory, created (illusory) world, with the power of our word. No genius necessary for that insight.
And it is all a miracle of sound. (As far as I see it, light is only perceived if we translate it into sound, by giving it a word. Then the word becomes the power of our attention.) The three of us will do that until our dying day.

Now through the grace of these writings we are lead to follow an impeccable logic, that time can't be there because it is in no way spacial. I mean that there is no place to go, to get "back in time" or forward for that matter. It is not existential but only a thought. So no time, no movement that is not of this illusion, and thus no logic, because how could "this" (thoughts) bring me to "that" (logical conclusion) when there is no time for any cause and effect?

So to recapitulate, we have followed an impeccable logic to prove that there is no logic? Whoopie!

So now the big question: So What? What do you or the Doc do differently now that you "know" that, poof!, the world is gone? Ommmmmm. . . . I maintain that your answer is "nothing". You do nothing differently.

You may leave a little extra wobble room in your illusory life for mystery to appear to you, and rarely you might even say yes to some of that mystery if it appears to be an opportunity. Perhaps you'll take "this whole mess" less seriously. Is there any impact on your emotions, moods or anxiety quotient? Or because those are all in dismissal, are they allowed to run free?
I know all this. To the capacity that the collective word has left me in the condition to appreciate, I know it.
Now I am choosing (as part of my illusion of time) to go completely and 180 degrees in the opposite direction. My time is not my illusion, but it is my creation. I am up to noticing the mechanism of the collective hijack, and grabbing hold of "this whole mess". I am gaining a handle on my word, and giving it sincerity, while I am steering my creativity to stamp a bit of my own illusory structure on my life and the lives of those around me. I am creating my responsibility in the matter of my life, and where that might be possible in the right now.
This brings me tremendous satisfaction and trust and peace. I am finding a complete reverence for my place in the world and a love for this illusory unit that I call me. How can you impact the world with anything called "love" until you experience it on your own skin? I would say Doctor and his crowd are not all that adept at self respect. (But that is only a sound, so don't get disheartened).

What is Doctor’s teaching giving you that you've been at it for so long? Do you have to carry this tool box for the rest of your life, or will you ever get to be a journeyman in your own right, and then a master electrician?

My deepest heart felt love for all of your group, and for you Marcus, as I write these words.

 

Hi Richard,

The ego believes to live life in a world of 5 senses, to make appointments and to handle the world through the logic of his own word. The ego is taken for a genius when its logic functions very sharply. Logic and decisions happen to man and man does not make them happen to him. See article “decisions. A witnesser witnesses that logic happens to the mind, being fully aware that it is illusory and not real. Man does not call a witnesser a "genius" because man does not understand life, as it is, he knows the mind as it is. 

The miracle of sound and word happens spontaneously and not by the power of man’s mind. Man does not translate light into sound or give sound a word. The ego thinks it can do, speak or think on its own right in time and space. This is why the ego believes it will die some day, as dying means to the ego, not to be able to do, speak or think any more. As doing, speaking and thinking are illusory, death is an illusion, too! Everything in life transforms from one form to another, the ego considers this transformation as death. Illusory does not mean it does not exist. It does exist, but does not exist in a manner the mind thinks it exists.

It is the ego that follows "impeccable logic" and when it happens, it happens not through cause and effect but as a spontaneous phenomenon. When the ego's logic is understood as illusory, meaning logic is present and yet not present, when this happens, the ego transforms into a witnesser. Logic unveils itself as illusory, only the illusory results in demise of the illusory. The real does not make the demise of the illusory, for it has no need to. Knowledge reveals the drama through logic as real. Wisdom reveals the drama of life to be a drama and not real.

I do nothing differently, what I need to do happens, if it is meant to happen which is well and good. It does happen however, whether I like it or not. If it does not happen well and good too, for something else would have happened which I cannot control, which is what is meant to happen. Knowledge is not wisdom! Wisdom is to understand that the world never has existed the way the mind says it does.

“Life“ is a mystery! This understanding transcends the “yes“ and “no“ of the ego. Life is a “yes“ without conditions. Emotions, moods and anxiety happen less when they are understood to be not under the control of the ego. This understanding is enough to live life as a mystery, free of the ego's demands, emotions and feelings, whether they show up in the mind or not. The hankering to change or alter is no longer there.

Knowledge is of the ego and it is illusory, meaning not real. An UNDERSTANDING is needed to live the mystery of life in trust and love without conditions. 

The mind, although based on logic, is full of contradictions and you know it! Could a contradicting mind have any validity? Even science has no knowledge of what time could really be? Understand the time you create cannot be measured by a watch, but can only be defined by the number of ticks your watch makes. How real could a definition of time created by you be? If your creativity happens, understand it has happened to you so that you may understand whether it is real or not.

I am happy that you find tremendous satisfaction and peace in what you do. This should be the case in everything you do; otherwise there is no validity in satisfaction or peace. Is the same tremendous satisfaction and peace also present when you are unable to do what you wish to do? The same applies to love.

Life, as Dr. Shankar, shares is wisdom. Dr. Shankar‘s works are not a teaching at all, nor does he claim them to be. Teachings are based on logic, wisdom shares an understanding. Teachers believe that they are the doer, teaching pupils, also as doers, what to know and what not to know, what to do and what not to do. Teachings inform, while wisdom transforms. Teachings are “tools“, wisdom understands that “tools“ are illusory and life is a mystery. Therefore teachings give knowledge which is a burden if not understood as illusory. No one is on a particular journey “by his or her own right“ nor is he a “master“ who preaches a particular journey. A master is he or she who understands that life is a singular journey and man is not in control of it. This means everything in life is on a journey and that journey will happen. Life shines its light reflecting as matter, plants, animals and man without the need of an electrician!

No doubt that you mean well, as does the Academy of Absolute Understanding means well to humanity, Life is not illusory because Dr. Shankar says it is so. Life is illusory for it is so. If you are happy with your creations every moment of your life, Dr. Shankar would be happy, and so would I.

 

Hi Marcus,

Whooa, Marcus, I see that you go for quantity?
What happened to dialogue, where we both raise questions, and then we each address the other's considerations? Should we go a little slower to receive each other? Or is there no other one to receive, or definitely no one receiving.

Flushing through a river of similar sounding concepts is more of a deflecting technique than an embracing of the other. It is all the same-same of the domination/submission game. He who talks the fastest somehow wins.

None of this is even addressed toward me, because I have no ego, nor am possessed by any ego. Maybe your crowd has the ego fixation, and you are teaching sideways to them? It is not even a teaching, it is a preaching.

It's the ego (not mine) that also believes the world is not of the five senses. It is the ego that thinks appointments just appear to happen, and that sharp logic will puff me up. It's the ego that is content that it can be a witness, and I have the power to label what is illusory. The ego has its little pin, made of labels that he/she can stick into everyone's balloon, and be so content that he/she is coming out on the dominant side of the Dominant/Submissive equation. It is the ego that thinks that everyone must submit to my little pin. That nobody sees what I am capable to see. (But they should). It is so disrespectful. Of course by definition, there is no one to respect.
Whatever you see, is then given a word. Just look at your self talk. Then check your feeling and anxiety level to see what those words are doing to you. Everything you have just written here is massive self talk, in case you're wondering. It takes so much away from your capacity to contribute and be a part of your own life and the others around you. Maybe you like living that way and are sure that your witnessing is impeccable. This denial is serving you in some way, a disengagement that is serving some great disappointment in your life.

Let's even say that you are right on. But please take a look at how people are receiving your monologue. You're cutting their balls off, and I know that you'll answer that they have no balls and there is no one to have them. That is the sharpest knife, that cuts without even feeling it. It is a very convenient justification for using it, and probably a great feeling (of rightness) that goes with it? Please examine newly right now.
No matter what is true, your sharing it in this way is a disservice to your true believers. You spill these golden beans and you rob everyone a chance to make their own discoveries of life. All you have is a tribe of emulators, parrots and mostly parakeets. In this age we firmly believe that we should be copying the experts, or conforming our life pattern to the wisdom of ancient masters, or seeking some kind of divine guidance to steer our lives by. We so firmly believe that we are lost.
All of this is an attempt to apply something from the outside, to effect in some magical way, the “we who we truly are”. Let's call it the "outside/in" approach for living, and conformance to it, or resistance to it is really the same movement. You (your ego) believe that everything is mystery and beyond any "small you", and you so handily project that onto everyone else? It is not at all kind. Even your definition of a "greater cosmic kindness" sucks.

My intention is not to work with any ”outside/in” approach to growth. I leave this common technology flat, and I would offer NO new principles which to absorb.

Is there the possibility to help people become clear of certain unproductive and old preselected thought/behavior patterns? Can we do that without immediately substituting another philosophy or another belief structure? Do we have to convert people to another methodology, mine for instance?
Or can we just coach people into a more agile condition, to make their own experiments and discoveries, based on their own foundation of experience? This would allow them a true ownership of a “my life” and of a my life process, which may very well lead them to what you propose? It may also lead them to way beyond what your espouse. This is what we call empowerment. I just call it freedom. It definitely comes with a full basket of satisfaction, and no further yearning.
Sure logic serves only this moment and is made of wet clay. Why don't you put people into condition to see this for themselves, instead of spreading your "real wisdom"? All communicated wisdom is a thought.

"I do nothing differently". Whatever needs to happen will be chosen by me and created with my word, up to the point that I can see the limiting context that I have drifted into. What's different about that? Except you walk around with your hands cut off and a lot of no-no's about everything. This life appearance right now is created by your word, by my word, by my lack of word, by my drift, by my do nothing attitude (all in your medium of divine essence). Divine essence today appears as collective conditioning.

Mystery is that resignation to take away life's access points and deny me any insight into the mechanism of my foibles. Mystery even happens, it is always happening, but it is not to be spoken of nor focused upon. Especially not spoken of as an authority. Give it up please. Let all man rest in their true nature.

 

Hi Richard,

My post was not meant to dominate anyone. How could I, as I understand that life flows on its own accord. This would be a man’s honest observation of life. I or dr. Shankar have never denied the existence of anything in this world, and I am sure you have read the posts clearly. It has only been pointed out that everything exists in an illusory manner. You are right in saying that we should confirm our life pattern to the wisdom of the ancient masters. Yes, they have said the same, that the world is illusory and is a play light and sound.
Dr. Shankar‘s sharing, albeit illusory, has brought me to a point in which I live life as it is. This is what I wish could happen to everyone. And there are many who ask and listen without the barrier of thoughts about “right and wrong“, “dominant and submissive“. Life has been sophisticating ever since, and surely the ego too will sophisticate as a witnesser, more now than before.

Sharing an understanding does not mean to be kind to the ego. The ego believes to be a doer, speaker and thinker, and therefore does not “like“ to be told that this is not the case. But what could anyone do when this understanding has happened to him whether he likes it or not? It is obvious to such a man that life is not in man‘s hands – and there is no way out of sharing this insight whenever it happens.
When you read the news on website Academy you come to know about many people who are grateful to Dr. Shankar and the Academy for opening their eyes to their own life.
"Dr. Shankar was never an authority for me. I had trust in what he said and had the feeling that it is so, not because he says it, but because it is so. I checked it all out by myself and came to clarity beyond doubt that life truly is a play of light and sound and the ego is not the doer, speaker or thinker. This does not mean that man does not speak, think or do. It only means the doing speaking and thinking happen to him as a sophistication of light and sound. This is the manner in which I hope that you and anybody else who is interested in truth reads my posts on NNH, too.". I understand that truth can never be known but surely the illusory can be known.
Kind regards.

Hello Dear Marcus,

Please excuse if I emit an accusatory tone. I am not very seductive, I am just trying to slow you down. I also know you are a tough cookie. I do know that you and the Doctor are on a track. Until you get off of that track, there is no meeting with you. Up until then a dialogue is all a pretense. Perhaps there is no "other" in your world view. Then meeting is just another silliness for you.

While everything is a mystery, and truth can never be known, part of that mystery is that what I surely do know, as an I or, as a no I. (And I don't need that extra negating word in there). If you were off of your track you might have noticed that I said the very opposite, that it is insane to give up on ourself for some hear say of an ancient master's teaching.
Your professing to live life as it is, is bogus. Bogus is a word that Doc uses profusely, so I know you're used to it. Ask him. Right and wrong, dominant, submissive is what you are up to, and Doc's teaching is not liberating you guys from that. I am such a witnesser that I have no need for that word, nor its admonishment, nor someone else's model of the universe and the human's place in it.

You say that you checked it all out for yourself. But yet you molded your experience to a given model. That doesn't count. The whole world has molded themselves to their received model, as their cultural conditioning, and they are even willing to die for it. Do you die for Doctor? No! Is there some small interior truth that we must already know. If we listen to it and don't get tempted to dismiss it, can we find it? Of course it’s not good enough in the world of comparison. But could it be natural that listening to and nurturing this spark would allow it to grow and expand?

Would it eventually become that bright flame that could guide us, and sooth us, and be a benediction for those around us? (without any models). Is there the possibility to help people become clear of certain unproductive and old preselected thought/behavior patterns?

Can we do that without immediately substituting another philosophy or another belief structure? Do we have to convert people to another methodology, mine or yours for instance? Or can we just coach people into a more agile condition, to make their own experiments and discoveries, based on their own foundation of experience?

This would allow them a true ownership of a “my life” and of a my life process. This is what we call empowerment. Maybe they would arrive at what you are attempting to convey, but with a huge quotient of ownership that would make them unshakable? Maybe they would fly way past what you are saying, to deeper truths that our dear planet earth would surely enjoy and celebrate?
Let all man rest in their true nature.

 

Hello, Dear Richard,

If the ego is transformed into a witnesser, such a man – being asked in a philosophical, spiritual or psychological context - would share the understanding that the world, man and the mind are illusory and man is not the doer, speaker or thinker. He always remains satisfied and peaceful every moment of the day. A witnesser functions in daily life as if he were an ordinary man with an ordinary mind with the belief to be the doer, speaker or thinker. But the difference is that he is aware that life happens by itself to him. He is aware that life happens to others in much the same way but they have not realised it as yet. He is aware that life happens in an illusory manner, and he does not react to the beliefs, feelings and emotions of the conditioned mind. People may ask him how come that he is so satisfied and peaceful, but yet alive and full of enjoyment of life as well as loving as much as he could in any given situation, but there is no “how” to coach anybody. The depth of understanding that life is illusory expresses itself in such a manner, if it happens. Others may wonder why he does not react in a "normal" way, meaning in a way the ego is accustomed to and believes to be normal, to so called difficult as well as nice situations. He does neither panic in difficult situations nor does he freak out when something "good" has happened to him. Yet he is in constant admiration of how life manifests "difficulties" and "nice situations" in the mind as a play of light and sound.

A man of understanding (a witnesser) does not deny the existence of the world because he understands that it is there but not in the manner the mind believes it is. He would not coach anybody about what to do, speak or think, but he shares an understanding why the coaching is illusory and how the mind is deceived to believe that it is real.

You write in the recent mail ‘Is there some small interior truth that we must already know. If we listen to it and don't get tempted to dismiss it, can we find it? Of course it’s not good enough in the world of comparison. But could it be natural that listening to and nurturing this spark would allow it to grow and expand?’ Is this a question you want to be answered or is it a model you know and wish me to follow? You wrote in your previous mail ‘that it is insane to give up on our-self for some hear- say of an ancient master's teaching’. You also included in the same mail, the word expert too, which meant even their hearsay to be insane. Both mails could be considered as a dialogue with true or illusory as the basis and not right or wrong. Your record of interviews and posts in NNH should have given you the small interior truth by now. Who would you listen too? How could the conditioned masses help you find the inner truth you think exists? Even if they do, would that also not be a model? What would you name those who give you the answers you seek? Definitely not masters or experts, for you call them insane. The hoping to become a bright flame that could guide and sooth us and be a benediction, would it not be a model too? Because, hope only instills the desire to hope more
Your questions could not be answered in a way the ego expects answers to be, they could only be explained why they are not real but illusory. If it is your intention to understand what is really meant by “illusory”, a conversation would be possible. If, on the other hand, you want to convince me that the world is real, please do with irrefutable logic – this would not be possible because it is obvious to me that it is not real. You may call this a “track” but it isn’t. Wisdom does not exclude anything, because everything is life’s reflection and not the mind’s creation, as the mind is a reflection of life, too, a play of light and sound.

 

Dear Marcus,

I think that we are really starting to love one another. That's cool. Let me ask you this: Do we really need the ego and the witnesser? Or can we proceed with "just this", however each of us interpret it?

Of course manifestation is malleable (you say illusion), otherwise what could you do with it? Gee, that doesn't seem like the big deal that I get when I read you? It is just normal, mundane, everyday?? Of course we are always satisfied and peaceful, but we include all of our doing, speaking, thinking, and even our gamut of choices, as the "happening by itself". Can you do that? We CAN say NO, and it happens by itself. And our lives can shrink to minuscule possibilities by our choice, and it happens by itself, and it is all in the realm of miracle.
Happens by itself means all the myriad things, not just one thing like as in a destiny. Illusory only means malleable. Awareness can't be changed, everything else, yes can move around.
Beliefs, feeling and emotions we are creating (happening by itself) at every moment by our word, and of course there is a way to coach about these things, also happening by itself. Just change your word, your B, F & E change. It is so, so completely simple.
Illusory the way you use the word, it is far off and unapproachable. but the way I use it, it is the easiest seeing to teach and to imbibe in, so satisfying and so pacifying. No fears, no place not to go, no where to get lost into, or fear of entities or cull de sacs.

(Some small truth) We must know something or we wouldn't be here, right. Some small truth, that the whole of the world is running it tires over, and saying "get lost, what do you know". So are you and Doctor. when you tell the truth about it. It is not just a model, confess, you have always known something yourself?
All wisdom is thoughts. No matter the source. I don't need any masters. I trust people, I trust the human form to have within it all that is necessary. Just tune in. Who gives you hints on that? Ask Doctor, for sure he knows. I know him.
Nobody gives me the answers I seek. That is all second hand knowledge, that by now is impossible for the masses to distinguish. The bright flame is not outside. That outside one is always tarnished. Who ever gave anybody anything. It never happened and never will.

Of course our world is not real, or what of it is real, you nor I have no way of expressing, or even knowing. Thinking that you are in blah blah land and you see reality, is beautiful blah blah. Well, Have fun.

Illusory is a real inadequate word because of all its connotations and the previous power tripping around it. I sincerely suggest that you never use it again.
Light and sound, while being a pretty good metaphor is not an explantation for anything. Doc told me directly. Don't use it unless you know sound beyond what you currently think you do. It is not what you think. So with that it is just another obscuring technique. Don't use it. follow Doc's advice. Love. Let all man rest in their true nature

 

Dear Richard, 

Are you aware that all is happening by itself or do you just know it? If you were aware you would understand that words are not needed to be aware but to only know. Words just happen to share wisdom or teach knowledge, if it happens. Wisdom is illusory thoughts, too, and it happens to the witnesser, a sophisticated ego. Wisdom is words that reveal the world, man and the mind as illusory, knowledge is words that assume that the world, man and the mind are real. Wisdom and knowledge both are miracles of life.

How do you interpret “just this“? To me “just this“, would mean anything that is recognised by the mind and identified by the ego or individual and therefore is illusory and not real. Neither I nor Dr. Shankar have ever spoken about knowing the real. Only the illusory could be known and, if understood as illusory, it is lived and admired every moment of day and night. 
Of course being a witnesser is “mundane“ and nothing special, yet it is very rare that a man lives in a state of understanding and not wanting to get something more or different from what he actually gets. This understanding is a matter of sophistication of life and not a matter of coaching with a mind. The mundane and the special is the miracle of life.
Life being energy, the malleable too would be energy and so too the doer and the doing. No one could be coached in a real manner, because nothing ever stays the same. No word is ever spoken twice in the same manner, as words are sound and sound always flows and transforms itself constantly new and only appears the same to the mind because of meanings.  
And think about it: How could the time before, while and after the so called coaching be distinguished from each other?
There is no distinction between past, present and future. It only appears as such to the mind. This is the deception. Life, however, is one singular flow, the eternal Here and Now. Past, present and future are one. This is why coaching is illusory. Do you understand? Kind regards, 

 

Dear Marcus,

I do know that life is a miracle, and I am aware of it when I am aware of it. That means there is no yearning to shift the aware/to/knowing ratio and no distain if I realize that it isn't shifting.
Knowing does happen by itself. It is the automatic capturing of awareness through verbalization. That verbalization can be soft with its meaning or hard with meaning. The type of coaching about soft/hard meaning can be effective in allowing life and the mind to be flowing together in a symbiotic relationship. Meaning is like the needle valve, and allows the full on changes of this singular moment to be buffered. Why would you interpose yourself between another person, and the speed at which they wish to experience their life? Do you know them better than they do?

People often try to stop capturing experience verbally as an abstract experiment. They imagine that the "no word life" will be vast and will be preferable. They were told that by a "teacher". But, what are they running toward and what are they running away from? They're running toward a concept and away from their real day to day life.

You say Wisdom reveals that the world, man and the mind as illusory, knowledge assumes that the world, man and the mind are real. No they don't. You have merely set up a parenthesis, between which all of my life flows, all of everybody's lives.
That parenthesis is of the tiniest of importance, and those that give their attention to (keep their eye on only the end points) have been hypnotized to miss out on the actual living of this glorious life. The hypnotism that it has been said (by teachers) that these end points are the highest truths. They must be important then, I'll watch only them.

"Just this" means no yearning of any kind. Never hypnotized by stray words, which are outside thoughts. Never live by comparison, no desire for what you have or what others tell me.
Yet I am completely free to set up a polarity in my life which creates a new trajectory. I do that for no reasons. It is a pure act of creation, only because I said so. Of course I can know of the so called reasons too. When they change, so what? And I can turn my trajectory on a dime too, again as a pure act of creation.
I live not on an end point. I live in between, with all my options fully open and fully flowing.

My 2 minute coaching would be, "if you would merely stop saying that life is an illusion, and started to say that life is malleable, it would change everything about you." Your life would crack open to a million new possibilities.

An illusion is a trick by a magician. Life has pulled the wool over your eyes, and you don't know what is coming next. You have learned to bare with these surprises, and you claim to accept whatever sound and light is bringing you.
Malleable means that now you are the magician, and you can make things appear and disappear at will. I am that magician in my life, and much of my coaching becomes quickly effective. People stop being suicidal and actually become happy with productive satisfying lives.

Yearning is harder to get done with, because it is so ubiquitous that supposedly we all must yearn. That will be my advance coaching.
I haven't seen the Acadun "life is illusory" coaching change in over 4 years. If the message doesn't change, then it hasn't taken hold within anybody either. Otherwise they would be ready for a new level of the message.

Something is here, existentially. That's a given because diversity has too many points of view to all be fooled at once. Let that something appear as the Present. It is decorated with myriad of thoughts. One of those thoughts is that there is no Present, because you have no access to it other than through your interpretation.

Both memories and projections of "could-be's" are also part of the present. But somehow I don't believe they even deserve a word, like the famous Past or Future.

Coaching is a thought. Coaching coaches other thoughts. If you take to my 2 minute coaching up above, we will probably see that perceptions and opportunities change, perhaps radically. Love to you Marcus. Let all man rest in their true nature.

 

Dear Richard, 

So life makes you choose that you try to convince me, with irrefutable logic, that life is not totally an illusion but there is will and choice and therefore the need for coaching in it. Now I will explain to you why your beliefs are illusory and not real. I'll watch patently without insisting whether you are interested and listen carefully or not. 

It is logic that has convinced you that there is something you can do to make your life and the lifes of others better, as you have written: They have stopped to be suicidal and became happy with productive satisfiying lifes. That is good for them and good for you, I congratulate you for that change, may it be constant and unshakeable, come what may! 

But understand how the mind is deceived to believe that it was its willpower to make the change happen. You ask whether I want to interfere in somebody‘s life all the while he or she knows best about their life‘s? Life is one and appears as many, so how could one appearance interfere with an other in a real way? It just appears so to the mind because the mind is bound to recognize life in duality and not as oneness. This could never be its function. Life flows as one singular movement, deceiving the mind that there are many! 

Life could not be “allowed“ by will an choice to flow together with the mind in a “symbiotic relationship“ as you write, because life already flows as one, never divided and therefore with no need of a real relationship or sym-biosis (i.e. “living together“). If it happens, life appears as “symbiotic relationship“ to the mind, but in fact that happens all the time whether man realises it as yet or not! Ponder how come that man is deceived to think that it is his will and choice which makes that happen! The movement of light as the body and the movement of sound, which are one and the same, are precise to make that deception happen. This is the intelligence of life. The mind always underestimates the intelligence of life!
Perceptions and opportunities change all the time, for life happens "spontaneously, unpredictably and is uncontrollable" as Dr. Shankar points out over and over again. The wisdom of understanding life as it is does not need to change when circumstances changes, because it is the understanding that life changes all the while by itself - this is the essence of the illusion to be understood. While life changes all the time, witnessing stays the same. Wisdom, once cemented in man, is the help that makes man free from the need of any further help. However, coaching with knowledge has to be adapted to new situations: When life confronts the mind with apparently new situations there would be the need for further help and adapted coaching. 

It seems that you don‘t believe me when I repeat over and over again that I, as a witnesser, am satisfied and peaceful every moment of my life. Otherwise you won‘t try to coach me, wouldn‘t you? So how does your mind come to the conclusion that a man who understands life as an illusion is not happy and contended with all that happens to him every moment? For me it is obvious that it is the way the mind understands the word “illusion“. For the mind “witnessing the illusion“ means that the ego, believed to be a doer, gives up its faculty to act in a productive way. That is not what “witnessing“ means! 
Life makes the body of every man, including a witnesser, illusory though it is, move as it is meant to move and every movement is productive so to speak. It is the mind that interprets the movement through comparison and concludes that one apparent movement is less or more productive than another. To the witnesser however, it is clear that there are not many movements but life is a singular movement and therefore more or less productive could not be a reality. 
This understanding is the basis of the witnesser‘s trust in life, come what may. This understanding makes the witnesser contented and peaceful and lets him patiently watch every moment of life: He watches the way his mind moves in a million possible ways whereas the body moves in only one actual way! 

This is not a running away from daily life or anything, it is the total embracement of everything that is meant to happen and of everything that is not meant to happen but only the mind wants to happen. This includes an illusory coaching but the witnesser is aware that life makes the coaching and the “better“ life happen if it is meant to happen and it is not the mind. 
When somebody believes that coaching is happening by willpower of the mind this would condition his mind further to believe that he is a doer, speaker and thinker which it is not. And the belief to be a doer, speaker and thinker is what makes man suicidal or depressive because of lack of trust in life. This is why coaching is needed over and over again, whereas understanding that man is not the doer frees from depression once and forever. Being aware that life happens is constant and not there and then, this would be knowledge as is coaching. Acadun does not coach. It merely states and if people understand well and good, if not well and good too. 
Now, after reading your post again, some questions came to me for humanity to ponder (to whom ever it happens). They are meant to facilitate an understanding that all of the mind‘s beliefs are illusory:

1)If one is aware he would realise that everything in life is in constant motion without precise identifiable cause. To know means that causes are identified. Hence to find a ratio between them is logically not possible. Is this understood?
2) Automatic implies a machinery process. Anything automatic is subject to breakdown and repair. Knowing is a spontaneous, uncontrollable, singular gathering process from birth until death. A miracle. How could the mind make the miracle of knowledge if the mind is itself manifested by the miracle?
3) I have mentioned before that nothing is denied in life. Do you know this?

4) I have not interposed myself between anyone or their experiences. Do you know this? If I have, please point it out?
5) If you say wisdom does not reveal that the world, man and mind is illusory, and knowledge does not assume it as real, please explain what do they reveal to you? 
6) What teachers say will be diverse as teachers are diverse. Do you understand?
7) You yearn to improve your website and travel and interview people who you think may know the truth or point to the truth, you certainly yearn for donations, nothing wrong with them, but you do. Give me an example of a word which is outside thought?
8) If life is not illusory, explain what it is, with irrefutable logic and reasoning.
9) Define present with precise boundaries.

 

Love, Marcus Stegmaier

 

NEW MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE

Hi Marcus,

I thank you as always for your considered replies. I liked when you suggested posting some of this on Acadun.
I like where we are going with this, and I especially think that we are making progress with the numbering system down below. (Isn't it funny, that we have to "make progress"?) We seem so far away from each other as this singular oneness, that we evidentially don't have a clue what each other are talking about?

I believe that you have peppered your statements with what I must call spiritual axioms? (Perhaps it happened by itself?) These are off the wall statements that act as foundation pieces to your arguments. Using them kind of wrecks the whole thing, because the very basis of what you say is already met with a NO.
Examples:
a. Life is one and appears as many,
b. Life flows as one singular movement,
c. The movement of light as the body and the movement of sound, which are one and the same,
d. life happens "spontaneously, unpredictably and is uncontrollable"
e. life changes all the while by itself
To avoid these statements I was thinking to go back and just look at the whole thing, kind of from ground zero. OK, RE-BOOT
1. I guess it must be the simplest movement of being alive that an awareness factor appears and says that, "something must be here"?
What is our contact with that something?
In the trying to possess that something in some way, there arrises a tremendous temptation to somehow catalogue or describe that perception. It also seems like this happens by itself.
2. Now we have stumbled upon the "original polarity" in our attention, that a) "something is here" and that b) we have created "a description of that perception".
How or where else do we touch that first raw perception? I would propose that nowhere else do we actually handle it in any way, except in that verbal description.
3. I guess that we receive mixed messages from teachers (all perhaps different people but many similar messages), and some of those messages intimate a pure awareness that is not tainted by any of these descriptive thoughts (or labels).
My big time question is "So What"? Such a described pure perception in absolutely no way touches the life that we are living on this planet, with family, with community, with anything practical to live by.

Some are saying that there is indeed a take-away from pure perception. I maintain that this is totally false. That any take-away whatsoever is in the second category, the realm of "descriptions about", and however subtle, they are just as abstract as any gross label that man has ever come up with. It is illusion in your parlance.

In fact, this is where the team "Life is an Illusion" doesn't play the game. "Why should I play it if it is false?" Now I will parrot some distorted BS to myself like:

"This is not a running away from daily life or anything, it is the total embracement of everything that is meant to happen and of everything that is not meant to happen but only the mind wants to happen. "

Of course what is meant to happen is that your rent gets paid on time and your kids are fed and schooled and that you live in a caring western country, and not under a bridge, picking through the garbage dump in a war torn country, that is armed by western industrialists.

Otherwise this "luxury (illusionary) philosophy" would be out the window.

Your take-away by your declaration is: "I, as a witnesser, am satisfied and peaceful every moment of my life."
4. Now, are we already at peace with this bifurcation of human life?
And I suggest that you arrive at this peace by affirmation and not by denial.

1) your declaration, I am at peace
2) your integrity, what I say is true for me
3) power of your word, what I say always manifests.
The bifurcation again is that: Something is here, and we talk about it. Of course we talk about it all wrong. It is "really" nothing like the agreements that we make, and what we build our whole life and all of society upon.
But in the realm of that society, these descriptions are motivating all the action and no-action that we can imagine happening. It creates all the suffering by our pressing against each other, and it leaves that little space for joy, that is sometime verified.

This is where the team "Life is Malleable" plays its best game. We make things happen in the world of the malleable. (Illusion to you.)
• Let me say something, and then I'll do it.
• Let me make a promise, and then let me keep it.
• Or at least let me amend it to all those concerned, to be something that I can keep.
• Let me consider words like authenticity, integrity, core values, and if I don't find anything there,
• Let me start to construct these considerations in my life.
• Let me take steps to quiet the internal noise so that I can hear these things of importance to me, within myself.
• Let me throw out all old sayings and all old teachings that take this power away from me, when I blindly follow them.
• Let me find and hear my own internal voice.
Remember, that all along while I am doing this malleable stuff, "something is always here". But that something doesn't give a damn what I am doing or how far off I go on a mental holiday. Sure I want to create less suffering for me and those around me. Sure, I don't want to miss out on the opportunity to express love every day.

As I get it, your only take-away is, "as a witnesser, I am satisfied and peaceful every moment of my life."
Then there is the evidentially false part of your take-away, that you accept everything that does or doesn't happen. The suspect thing about that statement, is that your life is dandy, and you'll keep it that way, disguised as "meant to be". I don't see how you really need that part?

Let's look at some other good things that "Team Malleable" does by volition in their little agreement world every day.
What do we choose first and foremost at Team Malleable?
We want to identify what it takes to renew our own life and to renew life as lived on this planet. To do so we need citizens that aren't afraid to stand in their own power and that are able to stand for the power of choice in critical situations.
a) We will choose where to place our attention.
b) We will choose to hold our pure intentions unwaveringly.
c) We will choose not to pander to anxiety producing thoughts.
d) We will choose to separate what is here/now in our field of attention from what is in our memory of old images, and old interpretations, and old feelings about them.
e) We will choose to evermore closely know our authentic self. Who are we in this moment?
f) What can we stand for when we are most connected to our pure intentions?
g) What will motivate us into action, because these are the core values that we unashamedly espouse?
h) How will we ever move unashamedly, until we no longer rely on comparison?
i) How will we listen to newness, unless we stop judging other people?
j) When will we truly receive and support the other by clearing away our listening filters?
Dear Marcus, it is really a lot of fun to work in our little sand box, (the sand box of the Known World). I know that you know sand boxes too, but you are in the sand box of "Out of this World".
Please come in our sand box. It is way better. We'll love you when you get here. We'll definitely cure your case of the "jitters".
Richard Miller

Let all man rest in their true nature.

 

Dear Richard, 

 I live with my wife and three little children in a country in which almost everybody has enough money to live a good life, yes. But in my life, as in everybody else‘s life, there too is illness and, finally, death, be it of my own or of someone I love and live with. 

 

To be at peace and satisfied every moment of my life is not an axiom, it is the natural outcome of an understanding that I am not the doer, speaker and the thinker, though doing, speaking and thinking happen precisely. It means to trust life totally. And it is not luxury for the “rich“ countries because most of the so called “rich“ people are way more unhappy than the so called “poor“, ask them, if you want! It is the mind‘s function to compare and no matter how much a man has, he wants to have more, as long as he does not understand that it is life that gives him what he is meant to have and it is not up to the mind to have as much as it wants. If it were up to the mind to have as much as it wants, there would be no need for the mind to want more. Do you understand ?

 

As I wrote, this understanding does not mean, that the witnesser just sits around and “accepts“ everybody to fool him for example. The witnesser understands that the other is meant to try to fool him and it also gets witnessed how the other is stopped to do that, if it is meant to happen, even through action. Yet, there is compassion all the time, because the understanding prevails that neither I nor the other are the doer. This is what “witnessing“ means. Do you understand?

 

I do not use “arguments“, I express what has come to me as an understanding. This is shared in statements, not in axioms. A man who is aware would understand that there could never be a distinction in life between one and the other, as life is nothing but energy. Life is a singular movement because where could you find a break in energy? Man is not the doer, just watch a little bit closer and you come to understand. Do you know how many muscles need to come into play to take one step? More than 750! Does team malleable know how many signals the mind has to send to bring this about? Could all the messages be sent in the time a step is taken?

 

There is no need to believe me, as I too don‘t just believe but understand as a direct, unshakable insight due to sound logic and reasoning. This insight that life happens by itself is so obvious to me every moment of my life that I am totally independent from any belief of the mind. This is what happens to man if he becomes a witnesser and it could happen to anybody. 

 

Ponder: Just one example: Do we really have the capacity to choose our point of attention? If you really had the capacity to think what you want to think, why would you ever think an unhappy thought? But man is unhappy from time to time. Would it not be wise just to work on making the situation better without being unhappy? Then man would be happy all the time and still working to make his and other‘s lives better. 

 

But a honest observation is that this does not happen. Man believing to be a doer, becomes angry and after a while life makes him do something to make the situation better, and after all he is deceived by the power of this mind that his anger has motivated him to act and if he wouldn‘t got angry he wouldn‘t have changed the situation. Do you understand the play of the mind? 

 

A witnesser also flows with life but he is aware of it. And life changes all the time, this would be his observation, and life makes him change with the situation and work for a better world so to speak, if it is meant to happen. And while it happens, he trustfully watches life changing, including his own body, apparently working for a better world. Do you understand?

 

Life‘s movement is precise and the mind could not understand it as a whole, how could that be possible as the mind only has a small personal perspective? And this is not an axiom, but a simple observation – as simple as the observation that life is not in the man‘s hand but totally in life‘s hand, if you become aware! If life were really in man’s hand, he will not be willing to die, would he?

 

Here are further direct responses to what you have written. Please ponder: 

 

A) You write: “I like where we are going with this, and I especially think that we are making progress with the numbering system down below. (Isn't it funny, that we have to "make progress"?)“

Response: I do not say we have to make progress, you say we have to. By the way,

you have not answered the questions posted in my earlier response. Here they are once more for you to answer them:

1) If one is aware he would realise that everything in life is in constant motion without precise identifiable cause. To know means that causes are identified. Hence to find a ratio between them is logically not possible. Is this understood?
2) Automatic implies a machinery process. Anything automatic is subject to breakdown and repair. Knowing is a spontaneous, uncontrollable, singular gathering process from birth until death. A miracle. How could the mind make the miracle of knowledge if the mind is itself manifested by the miracle?
3) I have mentioned before that nothing is denied in life. Do you know this?

4) I have not interposed myself between anyone or their experiences. Do you know this? If I have, please point it out?
5) If you say wisdom does not reveal that the world, man and mind is illusory, and knowledge does not assume it as real, please explain what do they reveal to you? 
6) What teachers say will be diverse as teachers are diverse. Do you understand?
7) You yearn to improve your website and travel and interview people who you think may know the truth or point to the truth, you certainly yearn for donations, nothing wrong with them, but you do. Give me an example of a word which is outside thought?
8) If life is not illusory, explain what it is, with irrefutable logic and reasoning.
9) Define present with precise boundaries.

 

B) You write: “We seem so far away from each other as this singular oneness, that we evidentially don't have a clue what each other are talking about?“

Response: What is your understanding by “this singular oneness?“ You may not have a clue of what we are talking about, I am certain what we are talking about. I am sharing wisdom while you are repeating knowledge.

 

C) You write that you consider my statements as spiritual axioms and that all of it is “already met with a NO.“

Response: You just say no but do not offer any explanation why you say no to the statements. This does not hold any ground. So please explain. 

 

D) You write: “To avoid these statements I was thinking to go back and just look at the whole thing, kind of from ground zero. OK, RE-BOOT – 1. I guess it must be the simplest movement of being alive that an awareness factor appears and says that, "something must be here"? What is our contact with that something? In the trying to possess that something in some way, there arrises a tremendous temptation to somehow catalogue or describe that perception. It also seems like this happens by itself. – 2. Now we have stumbled upon the "original polarity" in our attention, that a) "something is here" and that b) we have created "a description of that perception". How or where else do we touch that first raw perception? I would propose that nowhere else do we actually handle it in any way, except in that verbal description.“

Response: 1 and 2 are knowledge which has evolved in the human mind and man has not made it happen. The first man on earth made only sound as any animal still does, and sound has evolved as the knowledge the present day man has within his mind. Please read the article: “perception”.

 

E) You write: “3. I guess that we receive mixed messages from teachers (all perhaps different people but many similar messages), and some of those messages intimate a pure awareness that is not tainted by any of these descriptive thoughts (or labels).“

Response: Any message is not without duality. Duality would taint awareness. Only messages are intimate with knowledge. Wisdom on the other hand points to awareness. 

 

F) You write: “My big time question is "So What"? Such a described pure perception in absolutely no way touches the life that we are living on this planet, with family, with community, with anything practical to live by. Some are saying that there is indeed a take-away from pure perception. I maintain that this is totally false. That any take-away whatsoever is in the second category, the realm of "descriptions about", and however subtle, they are just as abstract as any gross label that man has ever come up with. It is illusion in your parlance.“

Response: If you say life is not illusory, prove it is real with irrefutable logic and reasoning. You have not done so, as yet.

 

G) You write: “In fact, this is where the team "Life is an Illusion" doesn't play the game. "Why should I play it if it is false?" Now I will parrot some (...) Of course what is meant to happen is that your rent gets paid on time and your kids are fed and schooled and that you live in a caring western country, and not under a bridge, picking through the garbage dump in a war torn country, that is armed by western industrialists. Otherwise this "luxury (illusionary) philosophy" would be out the window.“

Response: Team malleable should be able to change all this. Raise donations to house those who live under the bridge and feed those who eat from the garbage dump, and disarm the western industrialists. Otherwise the luxury of team malleable philosophy would be selfish.

 

H) You write: “Your take-away by your declaration is: "I, as a witnesser, am satisfied and peaceful every moment of my life."“

Response: Who is stopping you from being satisfied and peaceful every moment?

 

I) You write: “Now, are we already at peace with this bifurcation of human life?“

Response: Find out how many bifurcation there are in this world. You would find it is totally bifurcated in varying degrees and no two lives are identical.

 

J) And I suggest that you arrive at this peace by affirmation and not by denial.

Response: Again I repeat – I do not deny! If I have please point it out. 

 

K) You write: “1) your declaration, I am at peace. 2) your integrity, what I say is true for me. 3) power of your word, what I say always manifests.

Response: The words “what I say always manifests“ are they your words or do you mean they are mine? Please clarify.

 

L) You write: “This is where the team "Life is Malleable" plays its best game. We make things happen in the world of the malleable. (...) Remember, that all along while I am doing this malleable stuff, "something is always here". But that something doesn't give a damn what I am doing or how far off I go on a mental holiday. Sure I want to create less suffering for me and those around me. Sure, I don't want to miss out on the opportunity to express love every day.“

Response: Very good. It is other’s life that team malleable is changing. So, team malleable must diligently watch whether the success rate is 100%. If not, it is not valid, for it would just be another business venture, and there is nothing wrong with doing business.

 

M) You write: “What do we choose first and foremost at Team Malleable? We want to identify what it takes to renew our own life and to renew life as lived on this planet. To do so we need citizens that aren't afraid to stand in their own power and that are able to stand for the power of choice in critical situations. a) We will choose where to place our attention. b) (...) j) (...)“

Response: First you would need to identify the moment where team malleable chooses to do everything. The identification should be precise, and not blah this or blah that. You have not replied to this request. If not then a) to j) remain a hope and a wish.

Love, Marcus

 

Not addressed,

Torturous Logic Paths lead Us to What we Already Know and Accept
For example, it is repeatedly said that whatever is "Real" must be precise and have full awareness of ever single detail. Examples are given like the hundreds of facial muscle to even produce a sound or a word, 750 leg muscles to take one step, when light is received by the retina, who sees what, where is it seen, and how?

This is offered as proof that no one is doing anything and all is an illusion. In the commercial world we call this an interface. MAC-OS or Windows on our computers is an interface, or the steering wheel of our car, or our bodies with the heart and lungs going by themselves, driven by life, are all interfaces that we do not have to be aware of in order to act within our system. Every machine in our kitchen or any factory has an interface
There are so many projections in these texts of what "Real" must mean and how "Real" would have to act. But each of these is just a torturous logic path and then logic, after being used, is denied as not being real either. You say it yourself when you admit that "I understand as a direct, unshakable insight due to sound logic and reasoning." That reasoning you have given priority over your perceptions or your spontaneous thoughts.
Too bad life couldn't be simpler, so that what you see is what you get, with nobody's idea of an important meaning interposed between the listener and their daily experience.
I also acknowledge all of those interfaces are present, and I call it the malleability factor. We don't claim any certain amount of reality in it. We just work with it as is. We acknowledged that "something is here" (real), and that we tell stories about it, (malleable). We further surmised that whatever "is here" is only accessible through some kind of second hand story. There is no other way to touch that realness. If you say there is another way, so what? Let us consider that when it happens to us. Case closed for now.
I can think an unhappy thought, but I definitely do have the capacity to choose another point of attention and move off of that thought. Everyday, Easy.

The most dishonest part for me in all of this rhetoric are the sayings, "If it is meant to be, or if it is not meant to happen". What on earth do you need that for? Once you land on one of those determinations, you are free to either work for something in a very conventional (doing) way, or ignore it completely as someone else's problem. That is very convenient and is completely suspect as self serving. It is also a horrible lack of precision. All your other words indicate that there is no such thing as time. So what space would it take to have something "meant to be", and with no one to mean it to be.
I would think that it would be so beneficial to never say "meant to be again". I would think it would also be self empowering to stop saying illusion and start using the word malleable. It can signify the exact same thing to you, that it is not part of reality. Boy just try it, and see if it would make a difference for you.
Last I'll just have one last go on sound and light. It makes a good metaphor for what I am saying, that something is here and then we talk about it. But it is delivered with such an arrogance and a specialness. When Doc told me not to say sound and light unless I understood it like he did, that was fine for me. I never used it again, and certainly didn't miss it. Let it be his special code words to himself. From what he told me, I am pretty sure that no one else understands what he wants to say either.

Of course the metaphor breaks down. I asked my friends the earthworms, and they told me to get lost with my insanities. I know that you have some special considerations about reflected light, since that is all the whole world is to humans standing afar. I suppose quantum posits matter as vibrations, sometimes acting like waves. Does that make it light? More bedtime stories. Who needs them when they are already asleep, including those same scientists who said it.
Richard Miller. Let all man rest in their true nature.

 

Dear Richard,

You write: “For example, it is repeatedly said that whatever is "Real" must be precise and have full awareness of ever single detail. Examples are given like the hundreds of facial muscle to even produce a sound or a word, 750 leg muscles to take one step, when light is received by the retina, who sees what, where is it seen, and how?“

Response: This is not the definition of real. Real means it exists as it is eternally, and does not change. The description of real which is repeatedly said is a description of that which exists to certain parameters, meaning knowledge.

You write: “This is offered as proof that no one is doing anything and all is an illusion.

Response: Such knowledge has been offered by others but not acadun. It has never been denied nobody is doing anything by acadun. It has only been pointed out that what man does, the doing and the done is illusory and not real.

You write: “In the commercial world we call this an interface. MAC-OS or Windows on our computers is an interface, or the steering wheel of our car, or our bodies with the heart and lungs going by themselves, driven by life, are all interfaces that we do not have to be aware of in order to act within our system. Every machine in our kitchen or any factory has an interface.

There are so many projections in these texts of what "Real" must mean and how "Real" would have to act. But each of these is just a torturous logic path and then logic, after being used, is denied as not being real either. You say it yourself when you admit that "I understand as a direct, unshakable insight due to sound logic and reasoning." That reasoning you have given priority over your perceptions or your spontaneous thoughts.“

Response: Sound logic and reasoning is illusory too. Just as you use logic and reasoning to prove that perception and spontaneous thoughts to be real, sound logic and reasoning is used to prove the real cannot be real.

You write: “Too bad life couldn't be simpler, so that what you see is what you get, with nobody's idea of an important meaning interposed between the listener and their daily experience.“
Response: What you see is what you get, correct, and along with it comes cheers if you think you got it or disgust when you think you got what you didn’t want. Tears eventually when it goes when you think you were unable to keep it for ever. A man of understanding realises what does come has come and will go just as it had come. There is neither cheers or disgust when it comes nor tears when it goes.

You write: “I also acknowledge all of those interfaces are present, and I call it the malleability factor. We don't claim any certain amount of reality in it. We just work with it as is. We acknowledged that "something is here" (real), and that we tell stories about it, (malleable). We further surmised that whatever "is here" is only accessible through some kind of second hand story. There is no other way to touch that realness. If you say there is another way, so what? Let us consider that when it happens to us. Case closed for now.“

Response: If you and all are happy with the malleability factor no matter how life turns out, well and good. If you, the malleable team and its members, are happy even when things on repeated trying do not turn out as expected and human experience informs you that things do not turn out as you expect them to turn out even though you tries, another way has to be considered now and not later. The case remains wide open until then.

You write: “I can think an unhappy thought, but I definitely do have the capacity to choose another point of attention and move off of that thought. Everyday, Easy.“

Response: Do you have the capacity to choose another point of attention when crisis strikes you which make you unhappy? No man can, in the history of mankind.

You write: “The most dishonest part for me in all of this rhetoric are the sayings, "If it is meant to be, or if it is not meant to happen". What on earth do you need that for? Once you land on one of those determinations, you are free to either work for something in a very conventional (doing) way, or ignore it completely as someone else's problem.“
Response: It is a man's problem when it happens to him, and he cannot take it as someone else’s problem. It would be dishonest if he takes it as someone else’s problem and honest if he considers it his problem and not someone else’s.

You write: “That is very convenient and is completely suspect as self serving. It is also a horrible lack of precision. All your other words indicate that there is no such thing as time. So what space would it take to have something "meant to be", and with no one to mean it to be.“

Response: Do you mean to say, nothing happens where no man is? 

You write: “I would think that it would be so beneficial to never say "meant to be again". I would think it would also be self empowering to stop saying illusion and start using the word malleable. It can signify the exact same thing to you, that it is not part of reality. Boy just try it, and see if it would make a difference for you.“

Response: This would only result in dropping one malleable team, when things do not turn out as expected, and choose another better team malleable, so on and so forth, till one realizes one cannot try to malleate what is meant to be..

You write: “Last I'll just have one last go on sound and light. It makes a good metaphor for what I am saying, that something is here and then we talk about it. But it is delivered with such an arrogance and a specialness. When Doc told me not to say sound and light unless I understood it like he did, that was fine for me. I never used it again, and certainly didn't miss it. Let it be his special code words to himself. From what he told me, I am pretty sure that no one else understands what he wants to say either.“

Response: I understand just as how Doc understands that life is a play of light and sound.

You write: “Of course the metaphor breaks down. I asked my friends the earthworms, and they told me to get lost with my insanities. I know that you have some special considerations about reflected light, since that is all the whole world is to humans standing afar. I suppose quantum posits matter as vibrations, sometimes acting like waves. Does that make it light? More bedtime stories. Who needs them when they are already asleep, including those same scientists who said it.“
Response: Vibrations and waves are the same and this is not quantum theory. If matter is not light what is it then? It is light whether you deny it or not. Light is a particle and a wave in the same moment.

 

Not Addressed,

DEVOLVE IS A GREAT WORD.

I can answer every point you raise and go number by number and letter by letter, and I am not opposed to doing that, (maybe later). I wonder if that is not devolving, "To degenerate or deteriorate gradually", into meaningless details.
Again I'll say, it's funny how we both seem to attach to the unimportant sentences and detach from what is meaningful in asking each other to clarify. It is almost as if we were purposely being as obtuse as possible, or admittedly English is not our first language, and I do not know Dutch.
So instead, for now, I have read Doc's article on Perception, as you suggested. He starts, that we all know that we are alive, but we cannot perceive this aliveness. OK. Isn't this exactly what I said in that: "something must be here"?
What is our contact with that something?
In the trying to possess that something in some way, there arises a tremendous temptation to somehow catalogue or describe that perception. (tell a story about it) It also seems like this happens by itself.
2. Now we have stumbled upon the "original polarity" in our attention, that
a) "something is here" and that
b) we have created "a verbal description of that perception".

(Why haven't you acknowledged this, my statement?) This is all that you are saying too.
How or where else do we touch that first raw perception? I would propose that nowhere else do we actually handle it in any way, except in that verbal description.

This my second statement is where Doc goes on in all the rest of the article on perception, with weather, comfort, discomfort, experience, happy or unhappy, trying to make a point (only in failed logic) about real and unreal. But I already covered all of that with "something is here, and we tell a story about it", that latter is where we give so much of our attention.
Isn't that clear? This is the only and always the bifurcation I am ever talking about.

If perceived life is unreal, So what? That unreality is our clay for molding this society, this family, our culture, occupation, everything. Get on with the molding them. What are you going to do, just sit at the foot of Doc and wait? Move it. Live in illusion to the best of your perceived ability. Build that perceived ability.

All the middle of his article is just a hard way around to say that mind perceives only delta X, the change in things, (and Doc judges it shouldn't, if it was of any value). How do you, Marcus, get so entranced by that. On our side, that is a ground assumption, not a big deal to make a point of.
The end of the article was meaningful, saying that when mind wakes up to any "Delta' (change) it assumes that before the change, in its slumber, everything was groovy. But really no such thing occurred. There was no celebration before, in that sleep.
Mankind has a limited window of perception. Isn't that purposeful in its own right? We can always discount that window, that if we had such and so instrument, we would see that movement is a totally different phenomenon, (A boxer's punch thrown for instance).

Now MIT is on Youtube with color magnification software. In even a regular commercial DVD you can see the actor's heart beat as their facial color flushes with more blood at every beat. Our unaided perception doesn't see that. Are you saying that only now that we have fast computer chips, we can know how to live life (or not live it, let it be lived)?

Bull-oney I don't agree with your point of view. Life has always been meaningful.

Richard Miller. Let all man rest in their true nature.

 

Dear Richard. 

You write: “DEVOLVE IS A GREAT WORD. I can answer every point you raise and go number by number and letter by letter, and I am not opposed to doing that, (maybe later). I wonder if that is not devolving, "To degenerate or deteriorate gradually", into meaningless details.“

Response: Every detail of man‘s assumption to be a doer has to be understood with clarity. When the meanings of the mind loose its power to appear real to mind, man lives free from meanings. This is when details really become meaning-less, not before. This does not mean man will stop doing and become lazy, the doing will go on just as it has always been, but the feelings that accompany such actions will not disturb or elate man.
You write: “Again I'll say, it's funny how we both seem to attach to the unimportant sentences and detach from what is meaningful in asking each other to clarify. It is almost as if we were purposely being as obtuse as possible, or admittedly English is not our first language, and I do not know Dutch.“
Response: You ask me to join team malleable. Is it unimportant to ask whether the basic assumption that man is a doer in time and space is real or not?

You write: “So instead, for now, I have read Doc's article on Perception, as you suggested. He starts, that we all know that we are alive, but we cannot perceive this aliveness. OK. Isn't this exactly what I said in that: "something must be here"? What is our contact with that something?“

Response: No. "Something must be here" is knowledge, you are not aware of the aliveness that is here, the ego is open to its beliefs and not to life. Understanding life as one means to be aware that there is no separation between the perceiver and the perception, and how could there be separation, when energy is all there is in every bit of space from the perceiver to the perceived including them both? It must be understood that the separation perceived by the mind, which does not exist as an actuality is needed for the drama of life to go on.
You write: “In the trying to possess that something in some way, there arises a tremendous temptation to somehow catalogue or describe that perception. (tell a story about it) It also seems like this happens by itself.“

Response: You are right, the story happens by itself, just like it all happens by itself to vegetation and the animal kingdom. They are not taught, instructed or asked to join team malleable. In much the same way everthing happens to man by itself, but a drama is manifested in the mind to make man believe that life is malleable. The mind is deceived to believe in separation. Its function is to catalgue and describe which happens by itself precisely for every situation in life, but the mind is not aware that life cannot be catalgued and described because it is one energy and the variety of separtion is just a drama in the mind. 

You write: “2. Now we have stumbled upon the "original polarity" in our attention, that

a) "something is here" and that
b) we have created "a verbal description of that perception".
(Why haven't you acknowledged this, my statement?) This is all that you are saying too.

How or where else do we touch that first raw perception? I would propose that nowhere else do we actually handle it in any way, except in that verbal description.
This my second statement is where Doc goes on in all the rest of the article on perception, with weather, comfort, discomfort, experience, happy or unhappy, trying to make a point (only in failed logic) about real and unreal. But I already covered all of that with "something is here, and we tell a story about it", that latter is where we give so much of our attention.

Isn't that clear? This is the only and always the bifurcation I am ever talking about.“

Response: It is not man who brings the original polarity of attention about, for he cannot say where man’s attention will be in the next moment. It is only for man to realise that he needs to be grateful that he has attention, for there are many who do not have this privilege. It happens as a play of light and sound in the human mind. And man is not in charge of choosing where to put his attention! This is the difference.
You write: “If perceived life is unreal, So what? That unreality is our clay for molding this society, this family, our culture, occupation, everything. Get on with the molding them. What are you going to do, just sit at the foot of Doc and wait? Move it. Live in illusion to the best of your perceived ability. Build that perceived ability.“

Response: It has been pointed out more than once in my preveous posts that witnessing does not mean to “sit and wait“. It means to be aware that sitting, standing up and waking around happens by itself and man does not bring it about. Do you understand? 

You write: “All the middle of his article is just a hard way around to say that mind perceives only delta X, the change in things, (and Doc judges it shouldn't, if it was of any value). How do you, Marcus, get so entranced by that. On our side, that is a ground assumption, not a big deal to make a point of.“

Response: The mind believes to be able to alter life. If the mind is not even able to perceive life at the speed it flows, how could it be the doer? Life is always ahead of the mind. 
You write: “The end of the article was meaningful, saying that when mind wakes up to any "Delta' (change) it assumes that before the change, in its slumber, everything was groovy. But really no such thing occurred. There was no celebration before, in that sleep.

Mankind has a limited window of perception. Isn't that purposeful in its own right? We can always discount that window, that if we had such and so instrument, we would see that movement is a totally different phenomenon, (A boxer's punch thrown for instance).

Now MIT is on Youtube with color magnification software. In even a regular commercial DVD you can see the actor's heart beat as their facial color flushes with more blood at every beat. Our unaided perception doesn't see that. Are you saying that only now that we have fast computer chips, we can know how to live life (or not live it, let it be lived)?

Bull-oney I don't agree with your point of view. Life has always been meaningful.“

Response: It does not need fast computer chips to become aware of life as a flow. It needs an understanding that the mind‘s beliefs about cause and effect are illusory and not real. The one who is aware does not need any proof of the mind. He understands that everything happens by itself.