Engagment

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Ground

Well from my perspective every individual follows one or several philosophies merely through the way of verbal expression. There are innumerable ways to express oneself but through choosing a specific one one chooses a specific philosophical view.

In seeing correlations as you do, it might show you in part another person relating through that, but as for me, I am more flowing with what is moving through my awareness at any given point of "me" entering into it, self first, the external follows. So in this way, I come to meet the relationship in myself first, then find inter related connections in the world one with that point of my own awareness. Which then opens me to know more of what moves through that point.

yes your philosophies are at least similar because there is this 'compassion thing'. Or so it appears to me but that is not of relevance because I actually do not have access to Gem's philosophy or yours which means 'my awareness does not resonate with it'.

Compassion is one aspect of the whole awareness moving through me being myself. I stay present with myself to allow "what is" to open me naturally. I am choosing not to "side" or "point" to one or a few philosophies, simply because I am more interested in just being aware of myself in the offering and letting it build a more inclusive awareness of how I can be more true to myself aware in that. So philosophies interest me more as a way of seeing how they correlate to my own awareness to just be more aware. Seeing people as they are and not seeing them through their philosophical views alone, supports me to see "them" one with that, so in this way I am moving through philosophy as the awareness, but also aware of them in that. But that is how I view myself in all this also.

Well christians e.g. would choose different words to justify their engagement. However ultimately the reason is the same. And with that - 'the reason' - I do not refer to what you call 'compassion'.

Someone I didn't know recently amongst a group of mostly strangers to me, said within two minutes of meeting me. "Oh she has the essence of venus"..I said "What does that mean?" ...I said. "Many say venus is the planet of love " He said. The essence of venus is someone who is heart centred. ..I said. "Well that is lovely to hear because I do value my heart space both for myself and relating". Then of course I asked what he saw others as in the group. Some were the essence of mars, some to other planets. I was intrigued how he related our true essence in this way. It didn't show me others until I began relating to them to see his view of them in this way. It showed me where he was looking at them to notice what he saw of them, the differences were more about "point of focus" or "seeing". As time went by, through my own observations and awareness of those others, I noticed that by the end of the connection, most were shining their heart essence to me regardless of where the original focus was directing itself in his view of them and me noticing that. I valued his relationship as he was seeing others in essence, it was valid in part. I did come to see, why and how he saw them in this way while we talked. It became apparent to me through their focus at times. I don't hold people to being this or that. I just notice them as I am noticing myself, aware of them more complete.

Being myself, I just be me. Where I point and focus is just where I can and will as it calls me or I need to be for my own relating, exploration. Terms of being are just me being and doing something. Really holding presence is nothing but being yourself. :) ...not this or that, just being. :)

And the more grounded I am in myself, I find being me is easier. :)

I can be aware of others compassionately, detach from "ideas" of them being what they are being, because I know compassion as myself. My detachment moves aware in this way of being me. (one aspect of being aware of something I can be)

[Deepsoul]

Love it Natures...trying!

[naturesflow]

Originally Posted by Deepsoul

Love it Natures...trying!

Awesome!
May I ask you. When you say trying? what did you mean deepsoul? I feel I am missing part of your relating in me, so I thought I would ask you for more to know more?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

In seeing correlations as you do, it might show you in part another person ...

If 'person' is understood as 'emptiness' then yes.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

... relating through that, but as for me, I am more flowing with what is moving through my awareness at any given point of "me" entering into it, self first, the external follows.

yes you are identifying with 'as for me' and 'I am more' and 'my awareness' and 'self first'

Originally Posted by naturesflow

So in this way, I come to meet the relationship in myself first, then find inter related connections in the world one with that point of my own awareness. Which then opens me to know more of what moves through that point.

Correctly. your sentiment of existent 'self' is the basis of your philosophy

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Compassion is one aspect of the whole awareness moving through me being myself.

yes, understood. The sentiment of 'being myself' is the prerequisite for the affirmation of compassion as feeling, as a skandha, as 'being myself'.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I stay present with myself to allow "what is" to open me naturally.

There is no need to open anything.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I am choosing not to "side" or "point" to one or a few philosophies, simply because I am more interested in just being aware of myself ...

Well your philosophy is the philosophy of existent self.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

... Seeing people as they are ...

Would be seeing them as emptiness.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

... and not seeing them through their philosophical views alone, supports me to see "them" one with that, so in this way I am moving through philosophy as the awareness, but also aware of them in that. But that is how I view myself in all this also.

yes and that view is philosophical view.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Being myself, I just be me.

It isn't necessary to be you.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Where I point and focus is just where I can and will as it calls me or I need to be for my own relating, exploration. Terms of being are just me being and doing something. Really holding presence is nothing but being yourself. :) ...not this or that, just being. :)

And the more grounded I am in myself, I find being me is easier. :)

It isn't necessary to be you.

I am not a budddhist, but the buddhist view of 'self' is valid. However it appears to me that you are far off that valid view of self.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I can be aware of others compassionately, detach from "ideas" of them being what they are being, because I know compassion as myself. My detachment moves aware in this way of being me. (one aspect of being aware of something I can be)

Detachment as non-involvement has always been present, is present and will always be present. One does not need to become detached. Now in this spontaneous presence of effortless detachment everything may arise, so why not compassion as in your case?

[naturesflow]

]I am not a budddhist, but the buddhist view of 'self' is valid. However it appears to me that you are far off that valid view of self.

How so?
Can you expand on this please - 'far off that valid view of self"

Detachment as non-involvement has always been present, is present and will always be present. One does not need to become detached. Now in this spontaneous presence of effortless detachment everything may arise, so why not compassion as in your case?

As for your statement in saying it is not necessary to be me. In the relating as such as it was, it became necessary to the conversation as I was noticing, to mention it as part of process. I know personally it isn't necessary to be me. I am already that.

I can only be involved as I am aware of myself being yes?
In the undoing of entanglements, (from being someone who had unhealthy attachements) the process of seeing myself detached is important to the building of my awareness in just "being" detached more effortlessly as you describe it. So right now in my world my "being" is aware of itself spontaneous presence of effortless detachment and what arises in that is everything I am. So in my pointing don't be confused with the whole awareness that is moving complete in me as one, it is bridging me in the becoming. The process I describe is the awareness of myself moving into letting all this go. For myself mindfulness is important in the change of awareness, so the deepening into being becomes more "grounded" for real. I am aware of myself but I am still practising myself aware in the real life experience. SO I am mindful and conscious of myself in all that. It also shows me a deeper understanding of the many movements moving through the whole which supports me too for my own creations beyond that moment.

I no longer wish to fake it till I make it..

It is one thing knowing what and who you are. But putting yourself into various situations in life will "expose" how integrated you are in the practice of you as all that. I challenge myself to ground myself deeper in process by participating in various ways to clear and open all those threads I might still be not holding presence effortlessly with. But that is just me. I want to walk my talk. Not just talk it.

[Deepsoul]

I want to answer that better Natures ,, but im burnt out right now ,,talk soon,,love the last pargarph from above ,,too stressed to read the rest ,,sat nam

[Ground]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

How so?
Can you expand on this please - 'far off that valid view of self"

The words you choose seem to express identification with that which is not self.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

As for your statement in saying it is not necessary to be me. In the relating as such as it was, it became necessary to the conversation as I was noticing, to mention it as part of process. I know personally it isn't necessary to be me. I am already that.

if 'that' is that emptiness then fine.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

I can only be involved as I am aware of myself being yes?

'mysef being' instead of 'being'

Originally Posted by naturesflow

In the undoing of entanglements, (from being someone who had unhealthy attachements) the process of seeing myself detached is important to the building of my awareness in just "being" detached more effortlessly as you describe it.

'undoing' to me appears as intentionality but the point actually is a non-doing. 'undoing of entanglements' seems to imply that there is something to be done, something to let go of, but that is not the case because actually it is just 'the doing' that has to be stopped. The doing is effortful, non-doing is not effortful at all. Just relax.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

So right now in my world my "being" is aware of itself spontaneous presence of effortless detachment and what arises in that is everything I am.

What arises in that is just what arises in that. No need to be it.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

So in my pointing don't be confused with the whole awareness that is moving complete in me as one, it is bridging me in the becoming. The process I describe is the awareness of myself moving into letting all this go.

Awareness is already free of it. There is no need to let go of it. Awareness is like mirror, crystal and space and continuously present without moving or change like the depth of the ocean.

Originally Posted by naturesflow

For myself mindfulness is important in the change of awareness, so the deepening into being becomes more "grounded" for real.

I no longer wish to fake it till I make it..

The view of causality in the context of 'attaining something' as expressed in 'mindfulness is important in the change of awareness' is characteristic for buddhist view. That is why I am not buddhist.

[Jeremy Bong]

naturesflow, what you're response to firstandlast is YabYum practice. Just to tell you here that I'm not to involve in his thread unnecessarily.

[naturesflow]

Jeremy how do you determine this? I am engaging with first and last, simply noticing and listening without intent to be doing anything?

When I am relating unattached in this way, who is the one deciding it is this what your sharing?


Are you seeing similarities To YabYum in the dialogue?

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by naturesflow

Jeremy how do you determine this? I am engaging with first and last, simply noticing and listening without intent to be doing anything?

When I am relating unattached in this way, who is the one deciding it is this what your sharing?


Are you seeing similarities To YabYum in the dialogue?

I will not decide for who but as a friend to tell you the real intention to tell| meaning of the writing I think is nothing wrong, innit? I'm not the only one thinking that way, you check on running words.... I don't ask for anything from you or what...? Just a friendly advice.