"The conventional logic is that the mother precedes the child, and is the cause of the child´s existence. However, in order for a mother to actually be a mother there must be a child. Therefore the designation of mother is dependent upon the child. This reverses the expected cause and effect. The so-called cause (mother) is understood to depend on the so-called effect (child) for its designation, which renders the effect as a cause. Considering the fluidity with which the reversal is understood cuts through causality and allows the mystery of the continuum to outshine its coordinates.

The same fluidity applied to breaking through casual designations can be applied to the universe and perception. How would we know that there was a universe at all unless it entered somehow into perceiving? It is assumed that the universe precedes what perceives it, and that the perceiving mind is born into a universe that has prior existence, and allows it to exist. Therefore the universe seems to be the cause and perceiving is its effect. However, the effect of perceiving becomes the cause of the universe because of the necessity of the universe having to be perceived in order to be known at all. Therefore the perceiving becomes the cause and the universe becomes its effect. Like the Sefer Yetzirah states: "Their end is imbedded in their beginning, and their beginning in their end, like a flame in a burning coal (1:7)

If the seed of awareness impregnates the womb of its own expanse, is it a parent to its own thoughts? Which is cause and which is effect? How do mental phenomena indicate any coherent autorship? Why would it be assumed that there is a thinker prior to the thought? Is identity not designated by the thinking alone? Do you exist before the thought that you exist?

The nontheistic view held here assumes that creativity does not require a prior divine entity to pull its strings. Creative activity is uncaused, sourceless and spontaneous. The Fountain of Wisdom states: "Only that which generates itself can be called truly existent." Consideration of the magic of spontaneous uncaused creativity nullifies the linear causal progression, because a thing cannot create itself. In order to create itself a thing would have to exist before the act of creation to do the creating. This is impossible, and contemplation of the scenario allows a break in conceptuality.

The remedy for linear causality is a return to the open space "prior to" manifestation, without rejecting the display of its phenomena. The razor´s edge that equalizes form and formlessness can be realized in that space, no matter what seems to arise. Each mental construct can be taken as a body, and each body has five functions symbolized by five inner organs. Each organ corresponds to an alchemical function. The inner organs of the fivefold body of each mental construct mirror the senses of touch, taste, smell, hearing and sight.

Each fivefold collection of functions is the pregnant beast laid upon the fiery altar of sacrifice in contemplative practice, where the body surrenders to the fire of wisdom. As each functional unit is caught, bound, and consumed its life force is extracted, and allowed to dissolve in the same basic space that presents it. Space is a complete undifferentiated body that appears in the paradox of differentiation. No construct ever leaves space even for a moment. Therefore the sacrifice of the space-body marks the return to what it actually never left. The return is the sacrificial offering, its fire is sheer aspiration, and its rising smoke is the perfume of poetic resonance. Each moment of awakening enacts this scenario.

The fivefold organ system that constitutes a contemplative body can be applied to either the macrocosm or the microcosm, but it doesn´t really matter in the greater sense of the work. The main point is that each construct, whether vast or tiny, can be unmade in the midst of its apparent relative functioning. It doesn´t matter how the construct was made, as long as it can be unmade in the recognition of the essential nature of its life force. The assumption of independent existence that is imputed to the construct is the actual animal of sacrifice. This is the true meaning of the temple sacrifices described in the five books of the Torah.

The body is a whole offering, which sacrifices itself through the alchemical process. Immersion, absorption, and surrender unify the beast, and send its twitching impulses off garmented in clouds of variation, perfumed with the smoke of aspiration. Its smoldering flesh passes away in each moment. All constructs are impermanent, and their passing away is used by the practitioner as a sacrifice. The dissolution of phenomena is inherent in every moment anyway, so why not infuse it with gnostic intention? Why not make what is already happening into prayer?

(David Chaim Smith - The Awakening Ground)

"Thingness is the heart’s great sorrow"

Dzogchen Tögal — Encountering the Great Work
https://www.traktungkhepa.com/tidbits-blog/2019/2/11/dzogchen-tgal

Spiritual practice doesn’t heal the psyche as far as I’m concerned. Serious spiritual practice is tangential to it. You could still remain an extremely psychologically flawed individual and accomplish quite a great deal in spiritual practice at the same time, without one necessarily affecting the other. There’s a certain gross level in which they overlap, and the really severe distortions do become tempered, but at the subtle level, you can remain, as I did, extremely neurotic while you’re building up the resonance of practice accomplishment. I think that when spiritual practice becomes psychologized, it’s a very poor substitute for therapy, and it’s very poor psychology. It’s a different field. I think that the confusion between the two is largely due to a misreading of certain Jungian ideas, and other early 20th century ideas, that need to be sorted out. And I don’t feel that it is terribly sorted out in the literature. The New Age movement certainly has made matters much worse, where spiritual practice almost becomes synonymous with self-help, and self-healing. And I don’t think that they are. I think spiritual accomplishment has to do with the nature of consciousness and how it “en-worlds” an individual—ultimately, in the mystical sense, how an individual moves beyond the reification and division of a knowing subject and a known object, whatever that object might be.

The basic intention in my own practice, as the basic intention would be in my artwork, is to reach beyond conventional understanding and distill the resonance of that reaching — for no reason whatsoever. There’s a term in kabbalah, it’s a Hebrew term, lishma, which means ‘for its own sake.’ Meaning that something that is truly good, is a good in and of itself. There’s no reason needed. It’s based on its own inherent, innate goodness, which ultimately is the root of beauty. Spiritual aspiration is nothing other than a thirst for this purposeless, inherently beautiful, and inherently good, direction in one’s life. Ultimately, the more one acquires, builds up this resonance, the more one contacts the ultimate sacrament of the mind, which breaks down this dichotomy between the offerer, the practitioner and that which they are offering, which is their time and their effort, and ultimately the illusion that there is a recipient of the offerings that have been made…which in religion, is God. But, I am not a theist. So I don’t posit a creator god. The offering is made just simply based on its own inherent goodness for no reason whatsoever to nothing whatsoever.

One only becomes a practitioner out of love. It is undifferentiated, like the vastness of space, and it embraces everything through the direct recognition of beauty. This is the basis of the gnosis. To make a conceptual object out of that love, even one that encompasses everything within itself, defeats the purpose. It must remain open and pure, so that anything, everything, or nothing at all, can unfold without ever leaving its essence. To dedicate yourself to the pursuit of this requires discipline, clarity, and persistence. The goal is the absorption of the whole of your being, and the enworldment of that being, into the heart of sublime beauty. This is not a thing that can be calculated or reasoned out. It is a wild, crazy way to live. However there are those who have burned down everything else. We can’t live in society anymore, it’s too late. For us, the hardness of these disciplines redeem what would otherwise be total oblivion.

(David Chaim Smith)

"Definition of evil is wasting your time." (David Chaim Smith)

If
Rudyard Kipling

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!

INK_FLO: ten rocnik na konci me rozsekal!

"Mental health is the ability to deny reality and repress feelings within the boundaries and parameters established by one´s peer group(s)" (Christopher S. Hyatt, Ph.D.)

"The man who loses the path in the morning, if he returns home by the evening he should not be called lost." (eastern proverb)

"The reason that angels can fly is that they take themselves so lightly." (G. K. Chesterton)

Ephemeralization - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeralization

Ephemeralization, a term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller in 1938, is the ability of technological advancement to do "more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing," that is, an accelerating increase in the efficiency of achieving the same or more output (products, services, information, etc.) while requiring less input (effort, time, resources, etc.).[1] Fuller's vision was that ephemeralization will result in ever-increasing standards of living for an ever-growing population despite finite resources. The concept has been embraced by those who argue against Malthusian philosophy.[1] The subsequently coined economics term "dematerialization" refers to essentially the same concept as also does eco-economic decoupling.