Thursday, September 29, 2011


How strange memory is.
A short story...
Two days ago i was playing golf with 3 friends. We had just finished putting and were recording each others scores for that hole. We also record the number of putts and one friend couldn't remember how many putts he made just minutes before. A discussion revealed that none of us could remember even though we had all watched him putting.
Some discussing of ball placing and comments made and the memory came flooding back to me. i could clearly picture the ball and the sequence that led up to it falling into the hole.
Obviously the memory was there but access to it was the problem. That could be a function of how the memory was stored. (short term/long term etc)
i have come to realise that anything i remember is fallible as to it's accuracy.
My wife and i often remember events differently.
Every situation is experienced through the personal 'lens' of each individual.
Where i pictured the balls position in the story above someone else may primarily remember the conversation had at the time and someone else may remember their movement around the green.
Add to this the emotion of elation or disappointment (or whatever) at the success or failure of the putt.
The degree of attention paid to a situation no doubt plays an important role on how well an event is remembered.
Memory being a function of the mind/brain is conditioned and so will probably continue to function after Enlightenment much the same as it always did only there won't be added anxiety about whether it is the onset of Alzheimer's or the self beratement that often accompanies forgetfulness.
See a comment from an Enlightened One on a post about Alzheimer's.
Memory of course, is mostly what our personal story is composed of. The history component of our identity is all memory. When we say "I like..." or "I don't like..." it is usually memory based. When we think "I am a person who..." it is memory based. Even our intentions for the future are memory based.

i remember when,
i forgot how to be me.
Was i someone else?


This is a copy and paste of my post from a discussion on the Wisdom Page web site.
Socrates taught us not accept our existing thoughts as true. Step back and reevaluate the truth and veracity of your opinions and beliefs. Seek to know your real self and seek truth.
With this in mind...
What is truth?
If I accept the premise that truth exists as something separate, definable and see-able then I have to do something (focus) to experience it. (or stop doing something that stops me seeing it – i.e. having beliefs)
If, as I believed before, (I don’t know what I believe now) that truth is purely subjective, that everybody’s truth was true but peculiar to them, then there couldn’t/wouldn’t be an objective “external” truth. (hmmm, maybe they could both exist…)
What made it uniquely and peculiarly their truth was their history of experiences which by bringing to bear on the current situation, caused the perceptual distortions. I further reasoned (held the belief) that when the distortions were removed then nothing would remain, ergo that non existence was truth, or alternatively, that our historically affected perception made something out of nothing, made truth into false (the noun) and perceived it as form – thus creating a continuation of the world (“reality”)

Trouble is that as good as this sounds, it’s all bullshit!
It’s just another historically (or should I say hysterically?) affected distortion (or should I say perversion?) it’s just mind crap – making me feel better/good because I can believe that i know something that most people don’t know.
How can all of this mental bullshit lead to a clear, undistorted perception of the nothing that is truth (I still prefer my idea of reality – well not prefer (I don’t think…) I just can’t see (that is, think) how if ‘all is one’, how that there can be anything that is not the product of perception.
But this is still mental dribble, verbal diarrhoea and can only be of any use like the signpost or paved road as a travel tool.
I still maintain that the only reality is what we FEEL.
The way we feel is what we base our sense of well being on, our self esteem is directly related to how we feel…
Is what I feel real? Truth?
Is reacting to “what is” only being aware of actual happening, ie the sensation that tells me that I need to blow my nose, or the sound/feeling of gas gurgling in my guts or the image that is constructed in my brain - the stimulation of each of my senses? These my mind sense tells me are all coloured by history &/or my desires, so are not to be trusted.
Do I trust my mind that tells me that they are not to be trusted? This also, is monomaniacally focused on bringing me desires that will make me “feel good”
IT’S ALL FALSE, even the idea that it’s all false is false.
What is left?
Can I go through life with the false belief that it’s all false (this doesn’t make anything true!!) not believing even my sense inputs? My mind?
Well, yes.
This sounds like I will not make any decisions, just do what is in front of me, be purely reactive. Hmmm, that doesn’t sound like how it “should be” Why? – because (like everything else I believe) it’s something I picked up somewhere in the past.
An animal would be (?) purely reactive – reacting to external or internal stimuli.
A significant difference between humans and animals is the humans ability to appreciate ‘choice’.
If we are ‘animal like’ we can choose not to choose. That is, we can weigh up what is being offered and choose the one that doesn’t involve ego …
Reactive or Responsive ? Outcome focused. Which one is that ? I like the idea of catching the ‘winds of change’ as they blow by to tell me what to do. Not making ‘conscious’ decisions about how to “act” (how to be?)
Be lief, believe… be lief (lief is an adverb meaning willingly i.e. readily without reluctance) so belief is - be willingly !! Maybe SEE willingly is more “reality” (or truth) based.

OK, so I can’t see TRUTH, but I can see false.
How do I negate or strip away or make transparent the FALSE?
Just see it!
Recognise it for what it is. The False will evaporate in the face of scrutiny. (or so I believe) BUT, if I can’t believe what I believe (because [as I believe] all beliefs are False, how can I operate in the world?
I can only operate in the world by navigating my way around using beliefs…. How can I negate false when everything I see, hear, touch, smell, taste, and think is FALSE?
If I accept that everything is FALSE, then I also have to accept that I (my perception of ME) am FALSE. Hey that’s a no brainer. That I is obviously my ego. (but that is my mind telling me that – and it is also unbelievable. i.e FALSE) HELP!! There is nowhere to go….
Wait a minute! My bum just told me that it needed emptying. Is that FALSE? Partly. I guess it really just told me that it’s load COULD be reduced. To think that I HAD to go was false. To think that if I didn’t go then the sensation would increase to a Pain, was false. OK, maybe this is IT, my mind didn’t need to get involved at all in this, but my automatic response IS my mind interfering – based on beliefs.

I know (believe in an intellectual way) that I know nothing. That i have no absolute knowledge
Ok, I believe that nothing can be known with certainty. ( to know = see truth ?)(truth = objective fact ?)(fact = what actually IS ?)
I don't think (believe) that it matters. (I certainly can't know if it matters)
My experience = my interpretation of my sense input ? or my beliefs about my interpretations of my reactions ?
How is my experience and my mind separate ?
Isn't my physical/emotional experience greatly influenced by my memory of my previous experience?
Isn't most of my experience largely the result of my expectations ?
I don't think that I can give any more credibility to my experience as being related to truth than I can my beliefs.
Ok, I believe that nothing can be known with certainty. ( to know = see truth ?)(truth = objective fact ?)(fact = what actually IS ?)
I don't think (believe) that it matters. (I certainly can't know if it matters)

If truth is an ongoing interaction with the present (relating to “what is”) then truth is always new (it still could be the same truth)

Maybe “what is truth” should be “what is true”
Seeing what is “out there” that is an objective thing – truth is quite different to seeing what is inherently true in things!!
Seeing what is true in things is a way of seeing and seeing (here) is a metaphor for knowing.
This knowing transcends the thing. It becomes Experiencing the thing. (and so experience the dissolution of a boundary between the thing and you) and further investigation of the boundary between you and your name (ego – identity) the dissolution of which leaves you only as past thought patterns floating as memories on the ethers of now.
I have a feeling that truth is there to be ‘known’ by looking with the right kind of eyes. I think it isn’t something separate or different but a way of seeing ‘what is’ without the coloration of opinion – not that I can disappear opinion, but that I can see what coloration it causes (in myself)

If 1 plus 1 equals 2 then you would consider that to be a fact.
If I believe that 1 plus 1 equals 3 and I state my belief as fact, then, am I telling the truth?, My truth.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Monday, September 19, 2011

watched Gran Torino last night...

i watched Gran Torino last night and today my mind keeps coming back to it. (is this what a good movie does?)
My take on it (part of it..) is about fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear generated by the holes in our story that get filled with urban myth. ("all you gooks are good at maths...")
So here we have a Korea veteran who sees all asians as Gooks and is prepared to shoot any that step on his front lawn. He progresses through the movie in acceptance and even brotherhood ("these gooks have more in common with me than i thought..") and at the end he willingly ends his life in a sacrifice for the future of a (gook) friend.
Now this bloke is really right wing but in a typically  conservative manner he embraces the most humanitarian act possible.
This movie shouts out (for me) that the problems of the world are all emerging from fear.
Fearful people are defensive which is the opposite of the openness required for learning new ways of being.
Thankfully i have a glimmer of how the apparent mess the world is in is ok.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

It's the Doing...

The pleasure from life is in the appreciating of the doing.
This thought hit me a few days ago. It was profound, but like a dream the profundity has faded. i just remember that the seeing of this promised to change my life.
It was another way to arrive at 'being in the now' or doing the "be here now" of Ram Dass.
What can it be, to be fully immersed in the 'here' and 'now' but to be 'alive' with vibrant awareness of sensory input.
The mind, like a shovel, is a tool used to make it easier to achieve a particular outcome.
If i have to attend to the condition of the shovel to be able to use it, then i am diverted from my original aim. Likewise if i get sidetracked by the contents of my mind...

Alzheimer's. Can you be enlightened and have this?

Alzheimer's. Can you be enlightened and have this?
Can/Might an Enlightened person get Alzheimer's Disease ?
Can a person with Alzheimer's become Enlightened ?
Enlightened people throughout history have died of cancer and other 'normal' physical diseases.
Alzheimer's disease is a degeneration of the brain so it is perfectly reasonable to speculate that an 'Awake' person can get it.
For the not yet Enlightened with Alzheimer's to 'Awaken' is decreasingly likely as the disease progresses.
As an 'as yet unenlightened' without Alzheimer's, i am only speculating about this.

Wise thoughts...

Wise thoughts...
There can't be Wise Thoughts, can there?
Thoughts are just thoughts. What they are about... The response to them... The consequences of a reaction to the thought... The thought consequence to a thought and the thought stream and the consequences of action taken as a result of that thought stream, that is where the wisdom or absence of it is.
i see a mess on the floor as i go somewhere.
i step over it vaguely thinking "not my problem."
Then time seems to slow as i take a 'greater' perspective on what just happened.
i see that i didn't want to interrupt my intention to get somewhere (probably to do something)
i see that what i was going to do will be delayed by only seconds if i pause to pick up the mess.
i also see that if i do the job that i will save someone else the time and effort of doing it.
i also see that to bend down and pick up the mess will give me the benefit of the valuable exercise which helps me keep more flexible and help burn some calories (i need to lose about 8kg)
i can now see that i feel good about picking up the mess.
The effort to pick up the mess which seemed great on first stepping over the mess now seems small.
i now have reasons to feel good about myself whereas before i would have has some background guilt for not picking up the mess.

Wednesday, September 7, 2011

before wisdom.

What is there before Wisdom?
There is no 'before wisdom'!
There is only before 'awareness of wisdom'
Even before there is 'awareness of wisdom' there is occasional expressions of wisdom. There most likely no recognition that it is wisdom. This is (possibly) because of the idea that wisdom is something that only old people from other cultures might possess.
Wisdom is not learned, it is revealed.
It cannot be possessed because it is a process and not a thing.
First there has to be an acceptance that Wisdom exists as a possibile reality.
Enquiry and recognition are the revealers.
Enquiry into whether there are more possibilities.
Recognition of a particular feeling, an altered state of consciousness.
Recognition of a rhythm in the flow.
Recognition of an effortless arising of possibilities.

more on Wisdom...

Wisdom deserves a lot more than just the previous post.
i probably couldn't do justice to this subject no matter how much conceptualisation i do.
i imagine that i only know a little of Wisdom.
i have a feeling, a physical sensation that i recognise when i am being wise. At the same time there is a 'wide angle' view of the subject. An absence of 'me' and an absence of opinion is evident.
When i am being wise, that 'wide angle' view means that lateral possibilities as well as vertical possibilities are considered with logic checksum processing. Ideas 'appear' without effort. (as ideas do)
It seems that wisdom is mainly/only present when a decision is required. (this needs testing...)
Time distortion exists as when in a conversation the decision as to how to respond is made after a seeming relaxed consideration of the whole range of possibilities. All this occurs during what appears to be a normally paced conversation.
It is a distinctly an altered state of consciousness.

The above is noticed from inside wisdom.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011


Wisdom is not some thing.
It is not something you can add to yourself.
It is what is left when the ignorance about how the world really works, is no longer there. 

An example;
Take the situation where a toddler does something naughty.
One person might say "you are a naughty boy" and eventually with enough repetition and reinforcement (emotional threats or pleadings) the toddler may start to believe that this is integral to him. The child will come to believe that HE is a naughty person. When he describes himself he will add naughtiness to his characteristics. 
Another person might say "doing that is naughty, don't do it."
This means that the child has a choice about doing that behaviour. It's not him, it's something he does or doesn't do. He not a victim of his personality.
The wise person would see that maybe something in the circumstances triggered the behaviour, be it tiredness or an external stimulation and decide that rather than chastise the child it may be time for a sleep, etc. The wise person might also encourage him to see what is behind his behaviour.
The unwise person may take the child's behaviour personally, that is, they may believe that the child is intentionally interrupting them or demanding attention from them because it doesn't like what they are doing.
People who are very unwise take everything personally.
A wise person sees the bigger picture. They don't automatically respond with a judgement that this is "good" or "bad". Most people approach the world with an opinion which becomes the 'coloured glasses' through which they see the world. 
Is the glass half full or is the glass half empty?
How would a wise person see this? The pessimist says "half empty". The optimist says "half full".
The wise person might say "we have a certain amount of water and a certain amount of space, what is the intention for this glass? "

Saturday, September 3, 2011

i was thinking that 1st Sept might be timely for a summary.

i was thinking that a summary of current something might be timely when i realised that i was setting up a progress dynamic. A concept that something would happen in the future. Implying that i can get incrementally closer to Enlightenment. (i don't believe this to be the way of it, however i can get wiser while i play around the edges of it.)
Therefore, i have to acknowledge that i operate in time whilst (at the same time) believing to be true, that outside of my idea of myself that time doesn't exist. That time is just one convenient construct (concept) in the world i have manufactured in my imagination.
How do i reconcile the disparity?
No disparity. Each One is a view from a different side of the gateless gate.
Seeing/believing/knowing, that i am not awake, (on the assumption that if i was awake that i would know it), presupposes that at a future time that 'awakening' might occur. This is true whilst at the same time believing to be true that 'awakening' can't happen in the future as the future is nothing more that fantasy. A collection of 'what if' thoughts. Awakening can only happen NOW.
Another apparent disparity.
Hmm, can i say i was referring to some future NOW? (is that an oxymoron?)
When it 'happens' it will be a NOW. Won't it?
i think that NOW is only a concept. If i am experiencing something now, i have no sense of now. i am the experience. It is only later that i might describe the sequence from a particular NOW.
Even as i say the word NOW, it is already part of the past.
Being open to the ceaselessly unfolding NOW cannot possibly be my experience. It can only be an externally perceived concept.
If that description were accurate for me, then my experience would be of the sense inputs as they occurred. This of course includes the mind sense.
Any idea of past, present or future belong to the mind and the story it constructs around each experience.

Time is useful for;
appointments in the future,
but not for living.