Flux & Stillness

Concerning the dualities of:
I. All is flux; “One can never step into the same river twice.”
II. There is no flux; everything is stagnant; “Change is an illusion.”

“The circumstances of temporal physicality depend upon the mind which grasps it (and remembers it insofar as to reference it at a later time). Permanence is therefore only relevant to the perceiver so long as he can distinguish any such change; ‘the world is real’ can only mean that the world he remembers is always in some form consistent with the world he presently resides, and one may assume also, that he does not expect these circumstances of temporal physicality to change in the future.”

The nature of our consciousness (mind) records events and categorizes them in relation to its perception of time. Time itself is a measurement of change; and change being a measurement of time. Both conceptions are based upon subjective perception.
What we feel is “real” a.k.a. “permanent,” is also an illusion dependent upon our conceptions of “what hasn’t changed” according to our mental records (which make sense of life).

When we understand that all perceptions and conceptions reliant upon our consciousness/ontology itself are ultimately illusions, we arrive at point II;

“Case 29: Two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind. One said to the other, ‘The flag is moving.’ The other replied, ‘The wind is moving.’ Huineng overheard this. He said, “Not the flag, not the wind; mind is moving.”

“Stillness” and “flux” are both categorized in the mind as “objective” and “subjective.” Even further so, “objective” and “subjective” become categorized in the mind as “no-mind” and “mind” which is why there seems to be confusion/contradiction. (Confusion/contradiction can only occur with a ‘mind’ to begin with!) ALL is “no-mind” AND “mind,” the key being that which is “no-mind” allows “mind” to bridge what is “only-conceivable/’objective” with what is “only-perceptible/’subjective.”

Therefore, I. (Flux) depends on the mind’s ability to distinguish events by the use of time, and II. (Stillness) depends upon the mind’s ability to un-distinguish events by overlapping particular conceptions of time. Ultimately, the distinguishing/un-distinguishing of events is fabricated by the mind itself.

“Change” is a concept we use to make sense of smaller, subjective scales of experience. “Stillness” is a concept we use to align ourselves with our conceptions of objectivity; the extremes of “change” occurring are both “stillness.”

[Stillness] – (inperceptible change).
Slow change + short duration of change. – (slow and boring change, to the point where you doubt anything is actually occuring).
Moderate change + moderate duration of change. – (when you can be sure something is changing).
Fast change + long duration of change. – (things are changing so much and over such a long period of time that the concept of “things” stop existing)
[Stillness] – (when there’s nothing except perceived change, you realize that by everything always being in flux, this in itself means nothing is happening to anything; “what” exactly is being changed if “it’s” always changing?)

THE BRANKS

Being is the Noun; Form is the adjective.
Matter is the Noun; Motion is the Verb.
Wherefore hath Being clothed itself with Form?
Wherefore hath Matter manifested itself in Motion?
Answer not, O silent one! For THERE is no “wherefore,” no “because.”
The name of THAT is not known; the Pronoun
interprets it, that is, misinterprets It.
Time and Space are adverbs.
Duality begat the Conjunction.
The Conditioned is Father of the Preposition.
The Article also marketh Division; but the Inter-
jection is the sound that endeth in Silence.
Destroy therefore the Eight Parts of Speech; the
Ninth is nigh unto Truth.
This must also be destroyed before thou enterest into Silence.
Aum.

Advertisements

Sorrow & Creation

And now, a brief essay in four parts on the continuation of Sorrow through the vicarious curiosity of the Martian rover Curiosity, whom celebrates the most loneliest birthday in the galaxy every year by singing itself “Happy Birthday.”

  1. Why this is so sad: It is the ultimate metaphor for a being/creation abandoned by its god/creator. To make things worse, there are only a small number of these creations, all placed far apart from one another, and all there with a job from their creator. All they have is a job in a world full of loneliness. What a selfish god!
  2. Why this should not be sad: The creation is neither separate from the creator nor the materials of the creation. We, too all have a “job from our creators:” and this is True Will. True Will is also one with the creator and the materials of his creation. It is a cycle without sorrow so long as we are consciously part of creation/the creator/the materials of creation.
  3. Why is this so sad to me: I, being human, identify as a creation with needs due to having been given consciousness–Love. The rover, having been programmed to sing itself “Happy Birthday,” implies a cruel joke on behalf of the creator; whom created the rover with the need of an acknowledgement of its existence (through a birthday song) but then subjects the rover with no hope of true acknowledgement–hence it sings the song to itself.
  4. Why this should not be sad to me: The rover, whom was built with love and sent with love but is not conscious, Knows Nuit without separation. It lives eternally in Joy, having never been separated from it. It has within it, Hadit which is synonymous with the creator, and is an extension of the Will of the creator. Is the concept of this rover so different from the disenfranchised masses of people everyday who question their creator, not Understanding that they have never been separated?

29. For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union.
30. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.
31. For these fools of men and their woes care not thou at all! They feel little; what is, is balanced by weak joys; but ye are my chosen ones.

We are conscious and because of our consciousness, we believe we are separate from the universe. This illusion of separation is what brings all suffering. The answer to the question of why we are conscious instead of being like the rover, is because we are both creation (of the universe and ourselves) and creator (of ourselves and the universe).

“The Man delights in uniting with the Woman; the Woman in parting with the Child.”

The “Child” is like the rover, the “Woman” is the scientist, and the “Man” is just the scientist before he reached his potential to become a scientist.

In other words, the creation delights in uniting with the creator; the creator in parting with a “new” creation. This “new” creation, as the cycle continues, seeks to unite with its creator, and so on and so forth.

Antepenultimately, “creation” is only a word for Change. Humans are the result of a change in the universe, and we grow up to change ourselves and the universe.

Penultimately, “change” is only the appearance of change. Forms change, but the substance remains.
 
Ultimately, “substance” is the totality of existence, which includes non-existence.

27. …O Nuit, continuous one of Heaven, let it be ever thus; that men speak not of Thee as One but as None; and let them speak not of thee at all, since thou art continuous!
28. None, breathed the light, faint & faery, of the stars, and two.