/u/mindseal and I recently began discussing intention and manifestation and the “mechanism” behind it. We’ve moved our conversation to this thread so that others can hopefully share their thoughts and experiences.
/u/mindseal and I recently began discussing intention and manifestation and the “mechanism” behind it. We’ve moved our conversation to this thread so that others can hopefully share their thoughts and experiences.
In some sense there is no mechanism to will/intent. Mechanisms appear to matter because we have something we could call “stages” of intent. So for example, I intend to be in a certain city. That intent forms the context for further intentionality. Then once I am in that city, I can intend to be in a certain building. That’s another stage. Once I am in that building, that becomes a further context for a more refined intentionality inside that building.
In real terms it’s way more complex, because we start with some ground-level assumptions about reality. Those assumptions form the most basic context. That context is very abstract and we’ll need to get to some deeper context to get to something concrete. Once we’re dealing with some concrete things, we tend to think of mechanisms, because things often work like machines. So when we operate on things, we agree that “things are things”, which is to say, we generally hold things as inviolable in meaning, so a rock is not also a butterfly, but is only a rock. Because a rock is held to only be a rock, it can be used as a machine with the simple and predictable functionality of a rock.
So this machine-like functionality is relevant because we’re creating and mentally holding a layer of experience which resembles machinery.
So for example, look at the human body. Let’s suppose you want to move your body forward. You have to move your left leg, then your right leg, then your left and so on. That’s the mechanism of movement for a human body. But why does this mechanism exist? It’s because you have a restricted pattern of a body, and you’re the one who has restricted it that way. Because you do not forsake the restricting intent, your movement intent has to honor your restricting intent. Your body-restricting intent is the context within which you produce body movement intents.
But in general will is abstract. For example, do you really have to move your legs to move the body? No, you don’t. You can teleport or hover or whatever. But normally you wouldn’t allow yourself the luxury of that. :) It would seem crazy if you did that.
So suppose I want to make some clouds in the sky. Do I have to go through some steps? Is there a mechanism? No, there isn’t. That’s because I don’t have to honor any restrictions. If I am meddling in the weather, I am already breaking the “normal” rules. So once I am OK with breaking the rules, I am also stepping beyond all the mechanisms.
All this is best understood via lucid dreaming. If you get good at lucid dreaming you can try doing magick in a lucid dream and it becomes obvious. You just directly will whatever you want and you don’t have to go through any steps. But if you have a mental hangup, you may have to go through a step.
So for example, if I want to spawn a character, I could just spawn one. But if seeing something gradually or suddenly materialize is “too much” for my mind, I can imagine the new dream character as “already there” and then turn around to face them. So that’s 2 steps, which is a kind of “mechanism.” But this “mechanism” only exists so long as I have a hangup that prevents me from materializing character right under my nose.
Pinging /u/syncretik
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2019-07-13 17:57:36 (etnxxj7)
Yes in this context I agree. It’s ‘shape-shifting’ and deciding something is as you will it to be rather than setting up a mechanism which acts as a barrier. I still feel there needs to be a letting go of the beliefs which impede this direct path of WILL --> MANIFESTATION. You could say the letting go happens automatically because you override it by simply deciding that something is.
Also, there needs to be an understanding of what will/intent really is. It’s not a yearning or a hopeful wish. It’s more like a knowingness that a thing exists or is happening. So you can’t will something to happen if you just entertain the idea in your thoughts, it needs commitment and an accountability of your subconscious desires (which can be clouded or even “staged” as you say, by having a physicalist mindset). One of my favourite films is Stalker. If you don’t want spoilers go watch it before you continue reading.
In this film, there is a room inside a dangerous/forbidden zone which only a “stalker” can guide you through, and when you walk into this room your deepest desires manifest into reality. But when the people being guided reach the room, they change their minds and decide not go in because they’re afraid that their deepest desires might be nefarious and create unwanted circumstances, as some had experienced previously. This example shows how a lack of accountability can develop unconscious commitments that can create hangups. So being aware of this and taking responsiblity for your desires is one aspect.
The other aspect is what I mentioned at the start, which is getting accustomed to the subtlety of intending without contradicting beliefs. “I will X to be”…
Originally commented by u/syncretik on 2019-07-13 18:20:53 (etnz3um)
I agree. It’s also gradual. As you rely on unconventional intentionality, it becomes easier and it gets normalized gradually.
Also the corollary to there not being a mechanism for intent is that also, any mechanism can serve as the mechanism. So if you want to establish a mechanism, you can make it anything. As long as you use it consistently, it will become the mechanism for you in time.
I agree.
So if this is what you mean by “a mechanism,” then I agree. Although to my mind coming to terms with one’s own desires is not by itself, a mechanical process.
I agree.
So yes, if you can regard these requirements you’ve listed as “the steps” then I suppose you can call this “the mechanism.”
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2019-07-13 23:11:22 (etocogc)
I think many of us would like to reduce the gradualness to like a day or two :)
Agreed
While we’re on this topic then, “coming to terms with one’s own desires” feels like a realization. I haven’t experienced a time when I chose what I want to desire. What’s your take on that? Would you say these are othered desires that are seeping through?
Originally commented by u/syncretik on 2019-07-13 23:55:22 (etofimi)
I examine my own desires. From that, it is often evident what else I could desire instead. Once I am aware of more than one option, then I have a choice. If I don’t realize there is a different option, then I have an unconscious desire.
But optionality is a spectrum: from no options, to one other option, to 2, to 3, to infinity. The more options I can see, the more aware I am of my choice. So seeing just 2 options is often a kind of rudimentary awareness which is not very aware, but it’s better than seeing only 1 option.
I especially have a very strong incentive to examine my desires if something is stuck or is working in a painful/clumsy/grindy way.
So a very basic example would be something like, “I want to find work.” That’s the starting point for contemplation.
Then:
“Where did I get this idea that I want to find work?”
“My mom and dad worked, so I was familiar with the concept since birth.”
“Why do I want it?”
“It’s how I can get money.”
“Why do I want money?”
“I’ll trade it for clothing, food, shelter, entertainment.”
“Why do I need clothing?”
“I get cold, hot, wet.”
“Is cold bad?”
“I experience it as bad, but maybe if I train, it won’t be as bad.”
“I trade money for medicine.”
“What if I learn mind healing?”
“I trade money for things which make me look authoritative, like a suit, clean shave, cologne, etc.”
“Is authority anchored in appearances or is there something deeper?”
“I trade money for entertainment.”
“How can I entertain myself without the purchased tools?”
“I need money to buy people out, otherwise they lay claims to land and block my way.”
“Can I undermine or restructure the land claims in some other ways?”
“What is work?”
“Work is when I go toward my purpose even despite difficulty.”
“Then everything is work.”
“Yes, it is.”
“I need to distinguish work from working for hire.”
“What is discipline?”
“I used to think it’s what others demand of me. But now I know it’s what I demand of myself. In fact when I resist other people’s demands, that requires discipline.”
Etc. etc. etc.
So after a thorough investigation into the nature of work, my desire for work is transformed. I see many ways I can work. Not just one. I am less beholden to whatever mom/pop thought was “work.” I am more able to do my own thing and recognize it as work. So I do what I do without guilt, and because I don’t have guilt, I cannot be cornered by a conservative, not even in principle, since I’ve undermined the emotional guilt button they would need to push in a typical conversation.
So what opens up options is investigation of options.
So for example, say long ago I thought work meant to build houses. Let’s say I don’t think that anymore, but in my mind I believe there are many people who still believe that. There’s your othered desire. In this case it’s my own old desire which was embraced by others. I’ve moved on, they haven’t. That’s just one example.
Another example is if I hold “the other” to be free-willed, to be capable of independently producing desires, then whatever novel desires they come up with, is this othered desire. Then if I make it my duty to serve this othered desire, I am living a life of trying to make my subconscious happy.
However, subconscious mind cannot be made happy if it’s also allowed to be free. :) It’s fickle when allowed freedom. So even if the subconscious is temporarily happy, it soon grows unhappy and makes new demands. Plus, when many people are granted unregulated and complete freedom, they often become at odds with one another, and I then end up getting stuck in the fights and disputations I don’t want and may see as irrelevant.
So the way to be happy is to place one’s own conscious mind above one’s own unconscious. Which is the opposite of what the society teacher: “serve society!” Which means you have to serve your own subconscious while also not regulating it any. What is a slave? A slave is basically a servant of one’s own subconscious mind.
So serving oneself while also minding societal happiness, is the best way. I have to mind, because societal appearances are included in my overall state of mind, so my happiness cannot ignore societal happiness. At the same time, I cannot be a slave and I cannot merely “serve” the subconscious, but on the contrary, I have to make my subconscious mind serve my conscious mind.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2019-07-14 12:25:09 (etq2wlf)
Well said and I can agree to all of that. This reminds me of something that’s been discussed on here and other subs previously, which is, reality doesn’t seem to have depth. It arises from awareness or the mind, but it is devoid of time or “space”, and it can change completely in an instant. I used to think that it has a depth that’s stored within a subconscious mind of some sort which acts as a blueprint, but even that is a concept of the mind and I allow it to be that way because that’s what I believe.
Reality simply arises and transforms according to will…on the “surface”.
So desire is something that exists as part of the human reality. “I am a human in this thing called a physical world which has X and Y cause and effect, and this human self desires more ideas to manifest into this physical world in a certain way etc…”
Originally commented by u/syncretik on 2019-07-14 16:45:13 (etqio87)
I think the relative reality has momentum, which is like your concept of depth. However, the momentum that it has depends on your overall (conscious, subconscious and unconscious) volitional state and therefore is tunable. But people never think of tuning something like that since they think the relative reality exists independently as part of the seemingly independent environment “out there.” (never mind that people often take the relative reality as ultimate, which is another mistake)
I don’t neglect the manifestational momentum. Sometimes I actually want some patterns to gain momentum because I don’t plan on micro-adjusting them every hour, so I want them to stay steady as a kind of “background.” But sometimes some of the steady features get outdated and need to be refreshed, and at that time their steadiness gets in the way of tuning them, so sometimes I have to downregulate some types of momentum to make some patterns more susceptible to quick tuning.
I don’t believe that we are humans ultimately. Ultimately I am beyond species. I have the karma of a human, which is to say, my volitional makeup and my manifestational momentum support a human realm right now. But I am not permanently welded to this kind of state for all time. So deep down I am mind, and I ultimately can act as anything inside anything (so a human in a human realm, or a human in a dragon realm, or a dragon in a human realm, or a dragon in a dragon realm and so on ad infinitum).
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2019-07-15 02:51:51 (etrkjrc)
Yes, I would say the momentum is only as influential or as strong as you make it. You can tune it by simply deciding rather than, say, going through a complex technique or magick ritual etc…Techniques and rituals are very helpful especially when someone is still new to this stuff, but once you develop an understanding and intuition of the maleability of reality you can tune it more readily i.e. by just deciding. This is something I’m currently playing with.
I’m with you on that. What I was also getting at is that “desire” as you experience it in the context of being a human is not the same thing as volition, it’s rather an experience. Volition is the act of deciding. I feel I need to distinguish these two things because “desire” is aim without volition and is more akin to yearning/craving. This is also my interpretation of Buddhism when it says desire is the cause of suffering. You could even say, you desire to the extent that you forget your volitional leverage.
Originally commented by u/syncretik on 2019-07-15 18:05:28 (ettg1d6)
Exactly.
But sometimes you may (optionally) want to deliberately limit your ability to decide if you notice you tend to decide haphazardly and carelessly at times (sometimes it only takes one bad decision to ruin something important), you may want to put a conceptual magickal “wall” between decisions and emanation so that only especially empowered decisions are allowed to affect something more than the body and the personal conscious mind. That’s where the value of ritual may show itself, but for this one doesn’t need ornate and elaborate rituals, but one just needs a special marker of some sort.
So I agree with you, but personally I have some degree of protection that would protect me from randomly deciding something that I think is “cool” on the spur of the moment and 1 hour later regret. In other words, I have deliberately somewhat constrained my ability to decide some things. I can still decide anything but if it’s really important I have more hoops to jump through, and that’s intentional.
And this has been liberating to me, because it means I can think freely, including having incredibly stupid thoughts, and I can think about what it would be like to decide some dumb things, and I never have to worry that my stupid thoughts will leak out and manifest at large.
It’s like having a manifestational scratch pad that’s not intended as a work of art. On a scratch pad I can try stuff out only to throw it away. If I like how something looks on my scratch pad, I may bring it out more into the “external” sphere.
Maybe if I could trust myself to never even need something like a scratch pad in the first place, I would simplify my internal mental setup even further, but until then I will keep my “wall.”
I completely agree. That’s a very important point.
Exactly!
That’s also why imagination and thinking do not necessarily change manifestation. Only thought with intent to manifest has that power, not just any old random thought. I can think “let it rain” and I can think “let it rain” and intend for the rain to be my relative reality, and those two thoughts will “sound” the same in my mind, but the meaning is completely different and only the second one will manifest while the first one is just me thinking. It’s like thinking “I will scratch my itch” but then refusing to move my arms. It’s just a thought. It doesn’t scratch anything by itself. But if I focused on the idea of my itch vanishing and I was serious and fully expected this to become viscerally realized with good justification (such as having subjective idealism as my worldview in addition to also using intent in that way), then my itch my indeed vanish.
So I completely agree. You’re pointing out a very important distinction, which is also subtle and can be easy to miss.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2019-07-16 15:14:31 (etw4vsu)
I take this as a sort of elaboration on your post regarding the context and content of experience. Such that, as the ultimate builder of the stage not only are you reserving the right to what content appears on your stage, but also the right to further refine your stage in general. I feel that this could be a subtlety missed in the initial post. I feel it also heavily relates to your post about maintaining the mindset of a deity in that if something no longer serves you: cut it off.
I agree with this. When one cultivates a mentality that is beyond that of “I am this human here and this experience is happening to me.” the context of experience broadens to an unimaginable degree from the perspective just outlined. “Well if I am not only a human, to what extent am I?” This doesn’t eliminate the human you may have imagined yourself to be from the experience, quite the contrary. It flips perspective to I am the experience happening to this human. Even that can be seen as a limited perspective because you can continue expanding from there to “I am the experience happening to all humans” all the way out to “I am.”
What’s beyond the “I am” experience can be described as “I become” and at that point “I” can become limitless. Then again that seems a bit of a stretch. Almost like wiping the slate clean. As you’ve mentioned:
This quick tuning can be more desirable than starting from scratch. So in terms of context versus content this was hard to see exactly how to move one to the other. But with the idea of momentum it’s much easier to adjust things because they aren’t being expressed as one or the other, rather they are expressed as varying degrees of the same thing.
Originally commented by u/Scew on 2019-07-18 00:14:31 (eu1q9gu)
Very much so.
I do not identify with any experience, but I take responsibility for all my experience.
So I don’t ID with it, but I AM responsible for it.
That’s the key to freedom. I see many people attempt to cut off their identification as a way to remove themselves from responsibility, which is the opposite of what I am doing.
I detach my identify from the limited notions of myself so that I can expand my responsibility, not lower it. I am responsible for all of my experience and I am ultimately not limited in ways that a human would be limited by humanity/biology and whatever “human” things are ascribed to the humans. But of course there is the momentum inherent in having been humaning for so long too.
I agree. “Starting from scratch” would be a huge mental blow I think. I mean you have to start without the universe and separate light from dark and go through all the primitive steps, which is kind of pointless. I do want some kind of a universe, some stage, and it’s easier to fix than to remake from scratch.
Yea, that’s because in subjective idealism we hang onto our own meaning construction. Normally the person would imagine the meanings coming in from the outside. So a tree is already a tree by itself, through its own agency, and it just impresses its shape upon your sight and you’re helpless but to recognize it only as a tree that is a tree that is a tree, etc. This is what it means to take appearances as informative. But over here we take appearances as suggestive rather than informative.
Originally commented by u/mindseal on 2019-07-18 04:28:36 (eu2e3r2)