All conflict with which we personally identify reflects a defensive posture from a Fear-Self. When the desires and needs of a Fear-Self are blocked, serious and emotional conflict will ensue. Fear-Selves hate anything that prevents them from getting their way; this applies to all kinds of situations, from long lines in the supermarket to threats to our loftiest aspirations. Every such obstacle pushes us into the shadow of the Wound, and that means suffering. When there is suffering, a Fear-Self will instantly emerge, full of rage, complaining bitterly about the presenting situation and looking to do something to 'correct' it. This is the source of nearly all violence in the world. Eric Gross p424 Liberation from the Lie
i wonder where hate sits with lack.
How do i experience hate?
As a mind/body which expresses most things passionately, it is easy for me to say "i hate idiot politicians/repressive regimes/people who litter/etc, but is it really hate?
It doesn't matter if it is hate or something else, it is my awareness of the process as it occurs that has the potential to free me from this suffering.
If recognition of the upwelling of emotion happens then it will flip me into a different perspective. One which will remind me that the 'hated' are also people who are reflecting their own conditioning.
i can hope that circumstances will arise for them that will facilitate positive change in their motivation for the shitty behaviour, but that is me attempting to fill a lack in myself.
The intensity of the hate emotion could be addictive. The kind of addiction seen in the religious. Certainly the single minded focus of intense hatred might be described as orgasmic. (in that the left [thinking] brain shuts down and the right [feeling] brain enjoys uninhibited [by the rational left brain] expression)
A relaxed consideration of my own process of hating is possibly the best chance i have of changing my own conditioning.
If my sense of lack is a result of my experience of being invalidated, and hate expressed is certainly invalidating for the recipient, then there is some kind of projection taking place. At least the internalised invalidation process is being perpetuated.
Is it compassion realised (not fake/overlaid compassion) that can act as a circuit breaker.
Let's not hate the haters for they are us and we are them. (stones in glass houses)
i hate the hating,
that separates me from you
please, give me a hug.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
lack
"The feeling of lack is the 'mother' of our dreaded emotional experiences. It is a physical/bodily sensation. We experience it as a kind of inner hollowness or emptiness. We try to fill this lack with some kind of 'doing': We shop, start projects, dream about new relationships, practice a religion, join groups, have children, and whatever else we think can fill this hollow core.
This emotion - the feeling of lack - is anxious, insecure, and compulsive.
As long as we are identified with the experience of lack, we will operate from a position of insecurity and fear.
As long as we believe that we are lacking, we will live in fear and desire.
We are constantly calling out to the world, "Fill me - I need another hit!" People try to fill the void with accomplishments, acquisitions, hopes, and dreams. But our holes are bottomless. No amount of material goods or achievements can ever remove the painful identification with lack that will always return in moments of doubt, boredom, crisis, or fear." Eric Gross from "Liberation from the Lie"
Do i have a feeling of lack?, now, sometimes, always?
How can i determine if i have lack?, or maybe a better question to 'reveal' if i have lack would be, "is any of my behaviour a response to lack?"
Answer is "of course."
When i am hungry i am responding to lack when i seek food.
But then, there are times when i think i am hungry but i recognise that eating is a substitute for another unspecified wanting.
When i feel cold i seek a coat or heater, but then i recognise that there are times when i feel cold and everybody else is feeling warm... More often i am taking my coat off while everybody else is keeping theirs' on. This is a case of responding to a lack of 'cool' (pun intended)
When i could use a took to facilitate a job, i am responding to a lack of finger strength to turn a nut, but i have a shed full of tools 'just in case'
At a more subtle level is the question "how does a sense of lack determine my identity?"
Before i get into "my identity", i need to reference "a sense of lack".
It is a 'sense' of lack that we are talking about. Actual lack isn't the issue here. It is perceived lack that is the issue. That is the lack, when filled, promises a feeling of satisfaction. In particular a feeling of satisfaction in how i feel about myself.
This bring me to "my identity". This is my 'sense' of me. The concept i hold of who/what i am. This concept was being formed from birth and an early lack was probably when i was prohibited from suckling my mothers breast. After that there were a profusion of frustrations where i was stopped from doing what i wanted or made to do what i didn't want to do. Maybe even more basic is the (possible) lack of security i felt when i was expelled from the womb.
Regardless of the details, i recognise a lifetime of trying to be 'more' than i thought i was.
But now...
Have things changed? Am i still 'ruled' by a sense of lack? Am i writing this from a sense of lack?
Certainly i experience from time to time overeating. i experience anger and frustration when politicians talk rot with an attitude of knowing. (and many other examples)
So yes, lack is still in my life. I cope with disapproval with hardly a raise of emotion these days. Overeating happens a lot less often than it used to.
i feel lack but have a choice about responding to it.
Meditation seems to be what has given me the space to 'see' situations more objectively. To see what i would have done automatically with enough space to decide to do something differently.
Vipassana Meditation in particular has shown me that pain is only partly physical. That pain when tolerated, it changes. To be more precise, my attitude to pain changes. The pain is still there (say the pain in the legs from sitting in one position for an hour) but i don't need to be ruled by it. In extreme cases the pain that i thought i couldn't tolerate any longer has transformed and become a doorway into amazing revelations.
It has shown me that suffering is the mental overlay placed on pain. That suffering is self perpetuating. We feel a pain then tell ourselves how bad it is going to be and respond to that. Sometimes building a large complex story with immense suffering.
i am standing. i am breathing. How wonderful is that? How amazing it that?
How can there be actual lack while that is happening?
How can there be lack,
when this organism works?
i appreciate.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Memory...
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?
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?
Truth
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...
Truth
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.
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...
Truth
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.
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.
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.
example;
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Ask yourself what you really hate in people you see as vulnerable or weak.
Ask yourself what you really hate in people you see as vulnerable or weak.
Eric Gross - Liberation from the Lie
Hmm, vulnerable people are not hateful. Unless i hate the sadness and desire to 'fix' things that wells up in me. i certainly hate some of the destructive behavior some vulnerable people exhibit.
i feel extremely uncomfortable (sometimes frightened) around drunk people.
Once you have settled on what vulnerable type you really can't stand, write down the specific content of this visceral contempt image to really nail it down.
Drunk women were (are?) embarrassing. When i was a child my mum used to embarrass me by calling attention to herself and insisting that i dance with her. It always ended with her having a fight with her sister or mother.
Drunk blokes frighten me. (at least they used to. It hasn't been tested in a long time) They bring intense emotion to anger and violence. They do stupid things that often ends up in someone being hurt. i don't like Pubs.
Then consider the following: The vulnerable type you hate the most is the personification of your Wound.
Hmm, it's the 'out of control' aspect in common to both gender drunks.
consider what they really can't stand about adult members of their same gender. Thoroughly immerse yourself in what you hate about others. The details of this contempt should give you a clear understanding of your personal Wound.
The games drunk people play. The mutual (ego) masturbation present when a group of blokes gather at the pub on the one hand is an excellent display of mateship and connection, except that there really isn't any connection. Each is just reinforcing his story. i guess that is why they are mates.
concentrate on what you hate, but this time consider what you despise about those who are powerful.
The lack of compassion.
The powerful people you hate are mirrors of your original invalidators.
This one is easy. i despised the lack of compassion in my father as a powerless child. All adults had an unreasonable amount of power over kids (then) but he enforced his demands with the razor strop when i was young and the iron (power) chord when i reached adolescence.
i feel i have changed significantly in the past couple of months, so all of the above needs re-testing.
Eric Gross - Liberation from the Lie
Hmm, vulnerable people are not hateful. Unless i hate the sadness and desire to 'fix' things that wells up in me. i certainly hate some of the destructive behavior some vulnerable people exhibit.
i feel extremely uncomfortable (sometimes frightened) around drunk people.
Once you have settled on what vulnerable type you really can't stand, write down the specific content of this visceral contempt image to really nail it down.
Drunk women were (are?) embarrassing. When i was a child my mum used to embarrass me by calling attention to herself and insisting that i dance with her. It always ended with her having a fight with her sister or mother.
Drunk blokes frighten me. (at least they used to. It hasn't been tested in a long time) They bring intense emotion to anger and violence. They do stupid things that often ends up in someone being hurt. i don't like Pubs.
Then consider the following: The vulnerable type you hate the most is the personification of your Wound.
Hmm, it's the 'out of control' aspect in common to both gender drunks.
consider what they really can't stand about adult members of their same gender. Thoroughly immerse yourself in what you hate about others. The details of this contempt should give you a clear understanding of your personal Wound.
The games drunk people play. The mutual (ego) masturbation present when a group of blokes gather at the pub on the one hand is an excellent display of mateship and connection, except that there really isn't any connection. Each is just reinforcing his story. i guess that is why they are mates.
concentrate on what you hate, but this time consider what you despise about those who are powerful.
The lack of compassion.
The powerful people you hate are mirrors of your original invalidators.
This one is easy. i despised the lack of compassion in my father as a powerless child. All adults had an unreasonable amount of power over kids (then) but he enforced his demands with the razor strop when i was young and the iron (power) chord when i reached adolescence.
i feel i have changed significantly in the past couple of months, so all of the above needs re-testing.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
let's explore living life as a 'dreamt' one
Experience is what counts in this realm.
An intellectual understanding is just thoughts unless resonation occurs.
i have an intellectual understanding that the i/me i think i am is just that. Thinking i am.
i understand that the immersion in the details of that story is what 'hides' reality.
i believe that the story is where the separation from everybody and everything else occurs.
i can see how that separation is the illusion that creates the beginning of suffering.
The mind creates a bubble, inside of which everything is the story.
I am a character in that story. I am a dreamt one.
Each time it comes to me that i am a dreamt one, i realise that i am someone else's character in their dream.
(that someone else may indeed be a (presumably greater) me dreaming the me i think i am.)
Normal definitions of dreaming would go something like this;
A person is asleep (although day dreams are common )
It is the persons mind that creates the cast and props. Everything is a production of the mind.
That there is some value from the 'showing' of production.
Presumption: That an 'awakened' person know that they are 'awake'
i don't know it, ergo. i'm not.
Therefore i am a 'dreamt' one in someone's dream.
Therefore...
free will?
How can there be free will when i am displaying someone's need for expression?
determinism?
How can events be determined when someone doesn't even know their own need for expression to the point where it has to be expressed in a dream?
agnostic?
Best bet. If i take myself to be dreamt by a more primal me, how do i know that the dreamer of me isn't himself a dreamt one in an even more primal me. (in fact this is the most believable concept for me)
This in fact goes back infinitely. It had no beginning and will have no end.
There is no dreamer at the beginning (turtles all the way down!)
There is only dreamt one.
An intellectual understanding is just thoughts unless resonation occurs.
i have an intellectual understanding that the i/me i think i am is just that. Thinking i am.
i understand that the immersion in the details of that story is what 'hides' reality.
i believe that the story is where the separation from everybody and everything else occurs.
i can see how that separation is the illusion that creates the beginning of suffering.
The mind creates a bubble, inside of which everything is the story.
I am a character in that story. I am a dreamt one.
Each time it comes to me that i am a dreamt one, i realise that i am someone else's character in their dream.
(that someone else may indeed be a (presumably greater) me dreaming the me i think i am.)
Normal definitions of dreaming would go something like this;
A person is asleep (although day dreams are common )
It is the persons mind that creates the cast and props. Everything is a production of the mind.
That there is some value from the 'showing' of production.
Presumption: That an 'awakened' person know that they are 'awake'
i don't know it, ergo. i'm not.
Therefore i am a 'dreamt' one in someone's dream.
Therefore...
free will?
How can there be free will when i am displaying someone's need for expression?
determinism?
How can events be determined when someone doesn't even know their own need for expression to the point where it has to be expressed in a dream?
agnostic?
Best bet. If i take myself to be dreamt by a more primal me, how do i know that the dreamer of me isn't himself a dreamt one in an even more primal me. (in fact this is the most believable concept for me)
This in fact goes back infinitely. It had no beginning and will have no end.
There is no dreamer at the beginning (turtles all the way down!)
There is only dreamt one.
another glimpse was...
Another glimpse was how people create 'what if' scenarios then react to them as if they were real, thereby making it real.
It all started when i was sitting in my daughters house talking to her.
We were in the lounge room and i was looking out the window as i explained to her that it was too difficult for me to fix her reversing lights when her car appeared to be moving backwards!
i dashed to my feet and ran outside just in time to see it crash through the gate, collecting both front doors and folding them right around against the front mudguards on its way across the road and crashed into the front left side headlight and pushing the front of my car across about a yard.
Well, there is the original flush of adrenaline, then the shock while assessment occurs. Here is where the 'what if' scenarios start. i guess habit might kick in with the type of constructs that happen. A pessimist would instantly look for the worst possible outcomes while an optimist will build equally detailed possibilities for the future. These will occur because of the mind being in its element when it comes to constructing stories. The problem comes when a person reacts to the constructs as though they were real with great emotion.
One of us reacted to the possibility that my 2yr old grandson might have been behind the car and would have surely been killed or at least maimed severely. The other reacted with great relief that my car was there to stop hers from crashing through the flimsy back gate and down a steep hill into the bedroom of a house. Both were emotional reactions to 'what if' stories.
It was then it hit me. i saw the incredible influence this has on normal daily life. We are constantly reacting to 'what if' scenarios.
what if i get rich?
what if poverty moves in?
what if 'i don't know?'
It all started when i was sitting in my daughters house talking to her.
We were in the lounge room and i was looking out the window as i explained to her that it was too difficult for me to fix her reversing lights when her car appeared to be moving backwards!
i dashed to my feet and ran outside just in time to see it crash through the gate, collecting both front doors and folding them right around against the front mudguards on its way across the road and crashed into the front left side headlight and pushing the front of my car across about a yard.
Well, there is the original flush of adrenaline, then the shock while assessment occurs. Here is where the 'what if' scenarios start. i guess habit might kick in with the type of constructs that happen. A pessimist would instantly look for the worst possible outcomes while an optimist will build equally detailed possibilities for the future. These will occur because of the mind being in its element when it comes to constructing stories. The problem comes when a person reacts to the constructs as though they were real with great emotion.
One of us reacted to the possibility that my 2yr old grandson might have been behind the car and would have surely been killed or at least maimed severely. The other reacted with great relief that my car was there to stop hers from crashing through the flimsy back gate and down a steep hill into the bedroom of a house. Both were emotional reactions to 'what if' stories.
It was then it hit me. i saw the incredible influence this has on normal daily life. We are constantly reacting to 'what if' scenarios.
what if i get rich?
what if poverty moves in?
what if 'i don't know?'
one of the glimpses i had this week was...
i saw the interconnected of everything that resulted in a happening and the interconnectedness of everything going forward from that happening.
i was visiting a friend in hospital after he had an accident when i had an accident.
He said that it was his fault because if i wasn't there visiting him i wouldn't have had my accident.
i then said that no it was his wife's fault as had she not been there to take him home then i would be doing that and not be where my accident occurred. i then reasoned that it was their parents fault 'cos if they hadn't been born then circumstances would be different. Then i say that even the weather had a part to play as if it had been raining i wouldn't have been there either. i saw how it could be extrapolated to include the entire physical world, all of history and even everybody's attitude. EVERYTHING had colluded in my accident.
i was visiting a friend in hospital after he had an accident when i had an accident.
He said that it was his fault because if i wasn't there visiting him i wouldn't have had my accident.
i then said that no it was his wife's fault as had she not been there to take him home then i would be doing that and not be where my accident occurred. i then reasoned that it was their parents fault 'cos if they hadn't been born then circumstances would be different. Then i say that even the weather had a part to play as if it had been raining i wouldn't have been there either. i saw how it could be extrapolated to include the entire physical world, all of history and even everybody's attitude. EVERYTHING had colluded in my accident.
...Ok, i admit it.
...ok, i admit it. It is the rush i want.
The rush of realisation that i am not who i thought I was.
The rush of realisation that i am effortlessly residing in the realisation.
i had a couple of minuscule glimpses of Truth in the last couple of days and although beautiful lacked the excitement of discovery. (well, they were more like the flash of a concept that resonated truth)
my current concept of the 'enlightened' state (advaita cops - piss off!) is as follows;
a constant great big wide grin, wide eyed at the wonder of the discovery of everything and everybody as if it were a first time, welcome, wonder-ful encounter.
The full bodied ingestion of information and spirit of the current experience. Like a baby, no judgement, just awareness drinking in 'what is'.
Great joy.
There is effortless awareness of what is happening in the mind which has changed it's role from head honcho to hired consultant.
The much reduced stress levels resulting from no longer responding to 'what if' scenarios creating a body more in harmony with itself.
No more inappropriate ingestions.
A healthier body.
No more responding to the mind story that results from a reaction to what somebody says and elicits an emotional outburst. A calm reasoned, compassionate response to everything anybody says or does.
Better relationships.
The above seems perfectly reasonable to me.
(as a teacher recently said to me, "is that too much to ask?" [huh!]) <- that sounds like the beginning of a 'what if' story to me.
But i digress...
Although it seems quite attainable, it IS just a concept and the chances of reality coinciding with a concept are not good.
So, this remains just part of the best story i can come up with - while i wait for that transformative NOW.
The rush of realisation that i am not who i thought I was.
The rush of realisation that i am effortlessly residing in the realisation.
i had a couple of minuscule glimpses of Truth in the last couple of days and although beautiful lacked the excitement of discovery. (well, they were more like the flash of a concept that resonated truth)
my current concept of the 'enlightened' state (advaita cops - piss off!) is as follows;
a constant great big wide grin, wide eyed at the wonder of the discovery of everything and everybody as if it were a first time, welcome, wonder-ful encounter.
The full bodied ingestion of information and spirit of the current experience. Like a baby, no judgement, just awareness drinking in 'what is'.
Great joy.
There is effortless awareness of what is happening in the mind which has changed it's role from head honcho to hired consultant.
The much reduced stress levels resulting from no longer responding to 'what if' scenarios creating a body more in harmony with itself.
No more inappropriate ingestions.
A healthier body.
No more responding to the mind story that results from a reaction to what somebody says and elicits an emotional outburst. A calm reasoned, compassionate response to everything anybody says or does.
Better relationships.
The above seems perfectly reasonable to me.
(as a teacher recently said to me, "is that too much to ask?" [huh!]) <- that sounds like the beginning of a 'what if' story to me.
But i digress...
Although it seems quite attainable, it IS just a concept and the chances of reality coinciding with a concept are not good.
So, this remains just part of the best story i can come up with - while i wait for that transformative NOW.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
if i was the Guru...
If i was the Guru and a seeker came to me...
i would have no unique story to explain how things work.
If they weren't to walk away 'awakened' then what would they take with them so that they wouldn't need to return to me before awakening?
i would want to see them after awakening as they will need support while fitting into this new 'skin'
In order to 'awaken' during our very first encounter what needs to happen is for their mind to surrender to the actual and allow an experience that shifts their sense of i/me permanently out of the primary perspective.
For the mind to surrender it simply needs to be confronted with it's own contradictions.
Each seeker reaches out from within their own story. All stories are mental constructs. Me is a mental construct.
Enlightenment is a mental construct of the seeker.
First question to the seeker might be;
"Why are you here?" (to see me - a guru)
Most answers might be reduced to;
"I want Enlightenment"
Second question to the seeker;
"What does Who desire?"
Enlightenment do I desire.
A thing i wish to possess.
If Enlightenment is a recognition of 'this is it' then it can't be possessed because a recognition is not a thing. It is a process that can only be discovered.
The i = 'i think, therefore i (think) i am'
The I is reduced to a sensation generated by a collection of thoughts called memories that are constantly repeated by the mind for the sole purpose of continuing the sensation called i or me.
Desire is looking forward to a state that is different to the existing one. It is another collection of thoughts but this time about the future.
I and Desire are the same thing. (just a bunch of thoughts)
The space between you (the seeker) and Awakening is made opaque by the mind in it's constant value judgement (opinion) about everything from the perspective of an I or Me
To see and then relate to the actual is a matter of discerning when the mind is babbling for the sake of reconfirming who we think we are and paying it no attention in any decision making.
Wise people are good at doing this.
Awakened people do this without effort. Constantly.
Thoughts arise.
Bodies act.
Emotions happen.
Interactions occur.
Awareness does what awareness does. It does aware-ness-ing. It is aware.
Thoughts about 'what if' still arise, but awareness is aware-ing. It always is.
It's all exactly as it is happening now. Exactly as it happened yesterday. It is those thoughts about yesterday, the memories.
What triggers the recognition that brings on 'the shift'?
It's a mystery. What brings on any discovery?
It doesn't matter. Just keep playing around the edges and discovery is bound to happen, or not.
Talking to myself,
i said "come on you, wake up!"
"snore" was the reply.
i would have no unique story to explain how things work.
If they weren't to walk away 'awakened' then what would they take with them so that they wouldn't need to return to me before awakening?
i would want to see them after awakening as they will need support while fitting into this new 'skin'
In order to 'awaken' during our very first encounter what needs to happen is for their mind to surrender to the actual and allow an experience that shifts their sense of i/me permanently out of the primary perspective.
For the mind to surrender it simply needs to be confronted with it's own contradictions.
Each seeker reaches out from within their own story. All stories are mental constructs. Me is a mental construct.
Enlightenment is a mental construct of the seeker.
First question to the seeker might be;
"Why are you here?" (to see me - a guru)
Most answers might be reduced to;
"I want Enlightenment"
Second question to the seeker;
"What does Who desire?"
Enlightenment do I desire.
A thing i wish to possess.
If Enlightenment is a recognition of 'this is it' then it can't be possessed because a recognition is not a thing. It is a process that can only be discovered.
The i = 'i think, therefore i (think) i am'
The I is reduced to a sensation generated by a collection of thoughts called memories that are constantly repeated by the mind for the sole purpose of continuing the sensation called i or me.
Desire is looking forward to a state that is different to the existing one. It is another collection of thoughts but this time about the future.
I and Desire are the same thing. (just a bunch of thoughts)
The space between you (the seeker) and Awakening is made opaque by the mind in it's constant value judgement (opinion) about everything from the perspective of an I or Me
To see and then relate to the actual is a matter of discerning when the mind is babbling for the sake of reconfirming who we think we are and paying it no attention in any decision making.
Wise people are good at doing this.
Awakened people do this without effort. Constantly.
Thoughts arise.
Bodies act.
Emotions happen.
Interactions occur.
Awareness does what awareness does. It does aware-ness-ing. It is aware.
Thoughts about 'what if' still arise, but awareness is aware-ing. It always is.
It's all exactly as it is happening now. Exactly as it happened yesterday. It is those thoughts about yesterday, the memories.
What triggers the recognition that brings on 'the shift'?
It's a mystery. What brings on any discovery?
It doesn't matter. Just keep playing around the edges and discovery is bound to happen, or not.
Talking to myself,
i said "come on you, wake up!"
"snore" was the reply.
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Jed's suggestion for waking up.
Jed McKenna in Spiritual Enlightenment the Damnedest Thing, right at the end says you have to be crazy to want enlightenment, but if you do he suggests combining Spiritual Autolosis with fervent prayer.
Autolosis is THE BREAKDOWN OF TISSUE IN THE BODY (SELF-DIGESTION)
The process of Spiritual Autolosis it to start writing trying to define the truth by eliminating the false.
Start anywhere because it all leads to the same place. Who am I? is a somewhat traditional question to start with.
The prayer is for the courage to find and illuminate the false. Write Pray Write Pray etc.
So here goes (a start)
Who am I ?
There is no point in describing personal characteristics or history because characteristics change and history is just how it is remembered. Neither is the label of my name me, as i can change my name and still be me. (most married women change their name)
Am i my thoughts about myself? Well, considering that they change frequently (some times just because of a different mood - if i have success or failure etc) - scratch the mind as me.
What is left ?
Here is another question recommended by Jed.
What can i say is unequivocally true.
That i exist ? There is a mind/body and there is awareness of that mind/body.
Is that awareness the animating force of the body ? Does that animating force survive the death of the mind/body?
It certainly survives the death of the mind each night in deep sleep.
Some of my logic above is a little shaky or incomplete.
Why (for example) can't i be my mind just because it changes ?
If by my mind i mean the thoughts i have, then tell me this what thought can i have that doesn't instantly become memory? By the time i realise that i have thought something, the thought is finished. It no longer exists except as a memory of that thought.
But what thought actually happens as a thought?
i have thoughts that are verbal in nature and others that are visual and others that are movies with sound and others that are much more vague and are more of an impression of something than a description.
What did i start the previous sentence with ? It was "i have thoughts.."
It may only be language or convention to say that somebody is having something, implying ownership as well as doership. It is obvious that i am greater than my thoughts because i 'have' them.
The logic is often used that the eyes can't see themselves (without the help of a mirror, and even then they are not seeing themselves but only a reflection of themselves. To then jump to the logic of 'therefore it is also impossible for the mind to be aware of itself doesn't ring true for me. maybe the mind has the ability to (figuratively speaking) generate eyes on stalks that can turn back and see itself ???
Hmm, there is something smelly here.
This exercise is to expose the false but instead i am like the cop trying to prove a hunch right.
A lot of what i am saying is my take on what resonated with me as i read/viewed/heard it.
The following is something i have reasoned in the past and probably can be called a heartfelt belief.
i can only have beliefs. i can't actually know anything.
Even to say i exist is questionable. Try this on for size...
In a dream i believe i am real. My belief is as strong the belief i have now that i am awake and typing this. But how do i know that i am not dreaming this.
i can only know that i am dreaming this after i wake up.
i can't know that i am NOT dreaming this.
Wait a minute, when i was a kid i dreamt that i woke up and went to school then my mum woke me up and told me to get ready for school.
Logic tells me that it is feasible that if that happened in a dream then i might have been dreaming that i had a dream.
So you see, it is impossible to actually know anything.
Do i know this ? Obviously if the above is true and complete i can only believe this.
Even with this logic, it is always possible for somebody to come along and point out a flaw in this whole line of thinking.
So, on the assumption that i can't know anything, i can only talk from a position of believing...
A collection of beliefs constitute a story.
If i live by my beliefs, by my story, then i am not relating to reality but to my story.
Logic then says to relate to reality (we'll discuss what reality is in a moment) i have to have no beliefs.
It is easy to see how beliefs influence our idea of what something actually is.
Judgements are born of beliefs. We react to our judgements (likes/dislikes, good/bad etc)
If we are reacting to judgement we certainly aren't reacting to the actual.
So, how do we react to the actual (reality?)
Pain is actual but suffering because of the pain is an overlay that the mind adds to the pain. e.g. after cutting myself, i think "i might bleed to death" or "it might get infected" or "i shouldn't have
done that" or "i am stupid for doing that"
Relating to the actual would go something like this;
"There is pain, but not enough to take a pain killer. There is an open wound and some disinfectant will stop any possible infection. There is a lesson here about how i handled that knife - next time i use it i will be more careful"
The mental overlays come automatically because of habit. (which probably started from watching our parents or peers react that way)
The Zen koan, 'if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there then does it make a sound?'
is a good example.
An answer might be something like this (koans usually don't have any answer - just more questions) "It doesn't matter, i don't know if a sound was made. i do know that i didn't hear it so it isn't actual for me."
Just like the tree, the world is only actual when i interact with it. My thoughts about it are actual thoughts but not the actual world.
i don't know anything. i can only have beliefs. Beliefs are thoughts about...
So in order to relate to the actual i have to relate without thought?
Is this possible ?
i can't turn my thoughts off so that won't work for me, but i have experienced the situation where i see my thoughts before reaction takes place and i have a choice to ignore the thoughts because it is seen that they are habitual or conditioned thoughts and don't contribute to the actual situation i am relating to.
If i can't know anything and truth is what is left when all the falsities are removed, i might be in trouble.
Is the truth objectively true ? How do i know it to be true? (remember i can't know anything)
This suggests that i can't know what is true or false.
Like the sound of the tree falling, it doesn't matter to me what is true or false. i just need to see each situation clearly enough not to overlay it with my thoughts or emotions (emotions are reactions to thoughts - you might call them physical thoughts)
Autolosis is THE BREAKDOWN OF TISSUE IN THE BODY (SELF-DIGESTION)
The process of Spiritual Autolosis it to start writing trying to define the truth by eliminating the false.
Start anywhere because it all leads to the same place. Who am I? is a somewhat traditional question to start with.
The prayer is for the courage to find and illuminate the false. Write Pray Write Pray etc.
So here goes (a start)
Who am I ?
There is no point in describing personal characteristics or history because characteristics change and history is just how it is remembered. Neither is the label of my name me, as i can change my name and still be me. (most married women change their name)
Am i my thoughts about myself? Well, considering that they change frequently (some times just because of a different mood - if i have success or failure etc) - scratch the mind as me.
What is left ?
Here is another question recommended by Jed.
What can i say is unequivocally true.
That i exist ? There is a mind/body and there is awareness of that mind/body.
Is that awareness the animating force of the body ? Does that animating force survive the death of the mind/body?
It certainly survives the death of the mind each night in deep sleep.
Some of my logic above is a little shaky or incomplete.
Why (for example) can't i be my mind just because it changes ?
If by my mind i mean the thoughts i have, then tell me this what thought can i have that doesn't instantly become memory? By the time i realise that i have thought something, the thought is finished. It no longer exists except as a memory of that thought.
But what thought actually happens as a thought?
i have thoughts that are verbal in nature and others that are visual and others that are movies with sound and others that are much more vague and are more of an impression of something than a description.
What did i start the previous sentence with ? It was "i have thoughts.."
It may only be language or convention to say that somebody is having something, implying ownership as well as doership. It is obvious that i am greater than my thoughts because i 'have' them.
The logic is often used that the eyes can't see themselves (without the help of a mirror, and even then they are not seeing themselves but only a reflection of themselves. To then jump to the logic of 'therefore it is also impossible for the mind to be aware of itself doesn't ring true for me. maybe the mind has the ability to (figuratively speaking) generate eyes on stalks that can turn back and see itself ???
Hmm, there is something smelly here.
This exercise is to expose the false but instead i am like the cop trying to prove a hunch right.
A lot of what i am saying is my take on what resonated with me as i read/viewed/heard it.
The following is something i have reasoned in the past and probably can be called a heartfelt belief.
i can only have beliefs. i can't actually know anything.
Even to say i exist is questionable. Try this on for size...
In a dream i believe i am real. My belief is as strong the belief i have now that i am awake and typing this. But how do i know that i am not dreaming this.
i can only know that i am dreaming this after i wake up.
i can't know that i am NOT dreaming this.
Wait a minute, when i was a kid i dreamt that i woke up and went to school then my mum woke me up and told me to get ready for school.
Logic tells me that it is feasible that if that happened in a dream then i might have been dreaming that i had a dream.
So you see, it is impossible to actually know anything.
Do i know this ? Obviously if the above is true and complete i can only believe this.
Even with this logic, it is always possible for somebody to come along and point out a flaw in this whole line of thinking.
So, on the assumption that i can't know anything, i can only talk from a position of believing...
A collection of beliefs constitute a story.
If i live by my beliefs, by my story, then i am not relating to reality but to my story.
Logic then says to relate to reality (we'll discuss what reality is in a moment) i have to have no beliefs.
It is easy to see how beliefs influence our idea of what something actually is.
Judgements are born of beliefs. We react to our judgements (likes/dislikes, good/bad etc)
If we are reacting to judgement we certainly aren't reacting to the actual.
So, how do we react to the actual (reality?)
Pain is actual but suffering because of the pain is an overlay that the mind adds to the pain. e.g. after cutting myself, i think "i might bleed to death" or "it might get infected" or "i shouldn't have
done that" or "i am stupid for doing that"
Relating to the actual would go something like this;
"There is pain, but not enough to take a pain killer. There is an open wound and some disinfectant will stop any possible infection. There is a lesson here about how i handled that knife - next time i use it i will be more careful"
The mental overlays come automatically because of habit. (which probably started from watching our parents or peers react that way)
The Zen koan, 'if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there then does it make a sound?'
is a good example.
An answer might be something like this (koans usually don't have any answer - just more questions) "It doesn't matter, i don't know if a sound was made. i do know that i didn't hear it so it isn't actual for me."
Just like the tree, the world is only actual when i interact with it. My thoughts about it are actual thoughts but not the actual world.
i don't know anything. i can only have beliefs. Beliefs are thoughts about...
So in order to relate to the actual i have to relate without thought?
Is this possible ?
i can't turn my thoughts off so that won't work for me, but i have experienced the situation where i see my thoughts before reaction takes place and i have a choice to ignore the thoughts because it is seen that they are habitual or conditioned thoughts and don't contribute to the actual situation i am relating to.
If i can't know anything and truth is what is left when all the falsities are removed, i might be in trouble.
Is the truth objectively true ? How do i know it to be true? (remember i can't know anything)
This suggests that i can't know what is true or false.
Like the sound of the tree falling, it doesn't matter to me what is true or false. i just need to see each situation clearly enough not to overlay it with my thoughts or emotions (emotions are reactions to thoughts - you might call them physical thoughts)
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Do you believe "you" (your personality) survives after physical death?
Do i believe my personality survives after physical death?
Do - is a verb 'to take action'
i - who ? my mind - my sense of me-ness.
believe - beliefs are concepts congruent with a world view.
my - ownership. i guess it has to be the mind who would own a belief.
personality - who ? from my perspective my personality is me.
survives - continues ? unchanged ??
after - after that which was before is still now. i imagine that time doesn't exist post body.
physical death - when the body is no longer animated by what ? That which we are discussing ?
So, to rephrase the question; Is there some activity by my mind of a holding on to a concept that feels right that characteristics of who i sense myself to be will continue in the 'now' that is ? when my body is worm food?
Does the animating force that leaves the body on death have any coherence ?
if it does then does it retain elements of the personality ?
if it doesn't then do any of the components of it retain elements of the personality ?
i want to shout YES! with great feeling, but i can't say how it is more than a concept that i like.
i have to come back to "i don't know", but i will live like i do know and the answer is yes because i know of no better way to 'be me'
i don't know who's me
but it no longer matters
i, me, you, us, ALL
Do - is a verb 'to take action'
i - who ? my mind - my sense of me-ness.
believe - beliefs are concepts congruent with a world view.
my - ownership. i guess it has to be the mind who would own a belief.
personality - who ? from my perspective my personality is me.
survives - continues ? unchanged ??
after - after that which was before is still now. i imagine that time doesn't exist post body.
physical death - when the body is no longer animated by what ? That which we are discussing ?
So, to rephrase the question; Is there some activity by my mind of a holding on to a concept that feels right that characteristics of who i sense myself to be will continue in the 'now' that is ? when my body is worm food?
Does the animating force that leaves the body on death have any coherence ?
if it does then does it retain elements of the personality ?
if it doesn't then do any of the components of it retain elements of the personality ?
i want to shout YES! with great feeling, but i can't say how it is more than a concept that i like.
i have to come back to "i don't know", but i will live like i do know and the answer is yes because i know of no better way to 'be me'
i don't know who's me
but it no longer matters
i, me, you, us, ALL
Sunday, August 14, 2011
my current belief state on a post body condition.
i like the idea of reincarnation but it doesn't sit quite logically for me as there hasn't been enough time in recorded history for the infinite number of lifetimes mentioned in the literature.
It has come to me (from my readings and musings) that the idea of an infinite number of possible worlds arranged in a probability order existing in parallel makes more sense.
So, standing here/now i am confronted by an infinite number of possible worlds from which to choose to draw into my next current here/now. The ones closest to me (the highest probability factor) are the most similar to my current experience.
Each of these worlds is complete with everybody and everything and even contains a different version of this mind/body. (observe the different body chemistry and thought patterns in the world where i am happy as compared to the one where i am sad.)
So who/what is it that makes the choice of which next possible (most probable) moment to make actual ?
We could say that it is consciousness (my ? consciousness) or call it soul or even Soul. Regardless it is something that identifies with the 'me' parts of each world.
Although the above takes care of the time component we still have the problem of the space component. (it is a problem because it is part of the illusion - hmm, more on this later)
The ocean analogy takes care of this (i think - let's try it)
i am a wave. i have unique form. i change my shape but remain the same wave. i hit the shore, and die.
Each water molecule disperses back into the ocean. with tides and winds etc. they get spread from one end of the ocean to the other. If each of those water molecules can communicate with each other then the information (personality) that each contains is available to all (a hologram?) then it seems reasonable that any new wave formed with one of the above water molecules would from the perspective of said water molecule be a variation of the previous wave (of course made unique because of the combination of all the other water molecules) Said molecule in having the experience of the new wave would then communicate those new experiences back to all of the water molecules it shared the identity with as the original wave...
Which means that every molecule is enhanced by the enhancement of any one molecule.
The soul is a water molecule that now appears as part of a wave and now is part of the deepest ocean and now fish urine...
all at the same time (all at once), every where, (or is that never, no where)
i am every thing.
or is that 'i am no thing'?
or is it 'i am'
It has come to me (from my readings and musings) that the idea of an infinite number of possible worlds arranged in a probability order existing in parallel makes more sense.
So, standing here/now i am confronted by an infinite number of possible worlds from which to choose to draw into my next current here/now. The ones closest to me (the highest probability factor) are the most similar to my current experience.
Each of these worlds is complete with everybody and everything and even contains a different version of this mind/body. (observe the different body chemistry and thought patterns in the world where i am happy as compared to the one where i am sad.)
So who/what is it that makes the choice of which next possible (most probable) moment to make actual ?
We could say that it is consciousness (my ? consciousness) or call it soul or even Soul. Regardless it is something that identifies with the 'me' parts of each world.
Although the above takes care of the time component we still have the problem of the space component. (it is a problem because it is part of the illusion - hmm, more on this later)
The ocean analogy takes care of this (i think - let's try it)
i am a wave. i have unique form. i change my shape but remain the same wave. i hit the shore, and die.
Each water molecule disperses back into the ocean. with tides and winds etc. they get spread from one end of the ocean to the other. If each of those water molecules can communicate with each other then the information (personality) that each contains is available to all (a hologram?) then it seems reasonable that any new wave formed with one of the above water molecules would from the perspective of said water molecule be a variation of the previous wave (of course made unique because of the combination of all the other water molecules) Said molecule in having the experience of the new wave would then communicate those new experiences back to all of the water molecules it shared the identity with as the original wave...
Which means that every molecule is enhanced by the enhancement of any one molecule.
The soul is a water molecule that now appears as part of a wave and now is part of the deepest ocean and now fish urine...
all at the same time (all at once), every where, (or is that never, no where)
i am every thing.
or is that 'i am no thing'?
or is it 'i am'
Thursday, August 11, 2011
who am i ?
who am i who am i who am i who am i who am i who am i
who
who am
who am i
am
am i
am i who
i
i who
i who am
who...
who
who am
who am i
am
am i
am i who
i
i who
i who am
who...
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
am i waiting ?
i believe i can't do anything to 'get' enlightened.
i believe it will 'happen' someday.
i believe that my lifelong obsession with 'transcendence' has some meaning.
i believe that i don't know anything. (any knowing i have is just belief - intense belief - but just belief)
i believe that my beliefs are the best story that i can invent (to live by) and that most people have very limiting stories.
i believe that if grace visits me then i am ready and willing.
i believe that grace will come in a form that daily life will deliver. (grasp the golden moment of opportunity as it races past)
i believe that there is a purpose for my 'awakening' (to write and teach - maybe!!)
is belief something
more than just entertainment?
i believe it is!
i believe it will 'happen' someday.
i believe that my lifelong obsession with 'transcendence' has some meaning.
i believe that i don't know anything. (any knowing i have is just belief - intense belief - but just belief)
i believe that my beliefs are the best story that i can invent (to live by) and that most people have very limiting stories.
i believe that if grace visits me then i am ready and willing.
i believe that grace will come in a form that daily life will deliver. (grasp the golden moment of opportunity as it races past)
i believe that there is a purpose for my 'awakening' (to write and teach - maybe!!)
is belief something
more than just entertainment?
i believe it is!
Friday, June 17, 2011
where am i now
seemingly nowhere, yet subtly somewhere.
it appears like some movement has occurred.
(of course appearance through the lens distortion of my desire...)
my interest is still alive and kicking, my earnestness is still earnest.
it appears like some movement has occurred.
(of course appearance through the lens distortion of my desire...)
my interest is still alive and kicking, my earnestness is still earnest.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
deceiving myself
I do not consider myself less ignorant than most people. I have been and still am a seeker, but I have ceased to question stars and books; I have begun to listen to the teachings my blood whispers to me. My story is not a pleasant one; it is neither sweet nor harmonious, as invented stories are; it has the taste of nonsense and chaos, of madness and dreams — like the lives of all men who stop deceiving themselves. Each man’s life represents the road toward himself, and attempt at such a road, the intimation of a path. No man has ever been entirely and completely himself. Yet each one strives to become that — one in an awkward, the other in a more intelligent way, each as best he can. Herman Hesse
"who stop deceiving themselves" this could be a key to the 'portal'
Whenever i have an opinion about myself (or the world) then i am deceiving myself into thinking that i 'know' something when clearly it is just a view that i hold for the moment.
The only way not to deceive myself is to know (hmmm,) that i know nothing. Everything becomes fresh and actual without the overlay of my opinion (knowing) or judgmental attitude.
The question then becomes 'how do i avoid the habit of thinking that i know anything?'
Is it just a matter of reminding myself everytime i realise that i had an opinion?
It is probably beyond me to do anything other than this.
Why am i lying
about what really matters ?
About who i am.
"who stop deceiving themselves" this could be a key to the 'portal'
Whenever i have an opinion about myself (or the world) then i am deceiving myself into thinking that i 'know' something when clearly it is just a view that i hold for the moment.
The only way not to deceive myself is to know (hmmm,) that i know nothing. Everything becomes fresh and actual without the overlay of my opinion (knowing) or judgmental attitude.
The question then becomes 'how do i avoid the habit of thinking that i know anything?'
Is it just a matter of reminding myself everytime i realise that i had an opinion?
It is probably beyond me to do anything other than this.
Why am i lying
about what really matters ?
About who i am.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
There is no need to move from where you are...
"In the land of no escape, things just are, everything is.
There is no need to move beyond what is here in front of me." Stephen Williamson
i stumbled over this mans blog today. How (re)freshing.
He also says; "If my definition of liberation presents itself as something that you want to seek, then don’t. Long for it perhaps, but do not seek. There is no need to move from where you are to where you want to be. Stay where you are. Be who you are. Simply allow identification to slip away. The process is one of dissolving, not moving, grasping or reaching." (i took the liberty of fixing what i thought might be typos - here is his original post)
But the message to me is simple and profound, to accept my current state as the perfection that it is, and that it is just where i am on my evolutionary trajectory.
Enjoy the longing for enlightenment just as i might enjoy coffee or sex, while i am drinking coffee or having sex. (or indeed enjoy the desire for those things before they actually eventuate)
Appreciating
the expression of writing
right now, right here. YES!
There is no need to move beyond what is here in front of me." Stephen Williamson
i stumbled over this mans blog today. How (re)freshing.
He also says; "If my definition of liberation presents itself as something that you want to seek, then don’t. Long for it perhaps, but do not seek. There is no need to move from where you are to where you want to be. Stay where you are. Be who you are. Simply allow identification to slip away. The process is one of dissolving, not moving, grasping or reaching." (i took the liberty of fixing what i thought might be typos - here is his original post)
But the message to me is simple and profound, to accept my current state as the perfection that it is, and that it is just where i am on my evolutionary trajectory.
Enjoy the longing for enlightenment just as i might enjoy coffee or sex, while i am drinking coffee or having sex. (or indeed enjoy the desire for those things before they actually eventuate)
Appreciating
the expression of writing
right now, right here. YES!
Sunday, May 8, 2011
The Great Way is not difficult
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood
the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.
The first stanza of The Great Way - Sengstan (Third Zen Patriarch)
This is brilliant. If there is any one thing that i could think of to allow peace into the world it would be having no preferences. i can hear people shouting "What about love. We must have love!" Well, i contend that 'real' love is total and complete acceptance of 'what is' without a desire to change it or keep it or take meaning for my idea of myself from it.
Doing it (?) however is another story. As i asked in a previous post, 'can allowing be done?'
Being aware of preferences as i am confronted with circumstances is all that is necessary to expose them and then i have a choice (do i really have a choice about anything?) to consider not having a like or dislike for it. To consider that whatever my idea of 'good' (or bad) is just that, my idea.
Just like my idea of myself is just that, my idea.
Thoughts, nothing more.
It is my reactions to those thoughts where 'reality' enters.
If i have no ideas of good or bad regarding anybody or anything then my reactions are not likely to provoke reactions in others. (but then again they will probably react to their own idea of what my reactions mean. Maybe this way of being has to be better understood before people are less likely to misinterpret lack of judgmentalism. )
So, if i intend to be aware of my predilections or aversions to what or who appears in front of me (or what i think about), perhaps that intent to be aware is all i can do? From that maybe something can grow...
have an intention,
to be aware of dis like.
then may be what is.
for those who have no preferences.
When love and hate are both absent
everything becomes clear and undisguised.
Make the smallest distinction, however,
and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.
If you wish to see the truth
then hold no opinions for or against anything.
To set up what you like against what you dislike
is the disease of the mind.
When the deep meaning of things is not understood
the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.
The first stanza of The Great Way - Sengstan (Third Zen Patriarch)
This is brilliant. If there is any one thing that i could think of to allow peace into the world it would be having no preferences. i can hear people shouting "What about love. We must have love!" Well, i contend that 'real' love is total and complete acceptance of 'what is' without a desire to change it or keep it or take meaning for my idea of myself from it.
Doing it (?) however is another story. As i asked in a previous post, 'can allowing be done?'
Being aware of preferences as i am confronted with circumstances is all that is necessary to expose them and then i have a choice (do i really have a choice about anything?) to consider not having a like or dislike for it. To consider that whatever my idea of 'good' (or bad) is just that, my idea.
Just like my idea of myself is just that, my idea.
Thoughts, nothing more.
It is my reactions to those thoughts where 'reality' enters.
If i have no ideas of good or bad regarding anybody or anything then my reactions are not likely to provoke reactions in others. (but then again they will probably react to their own idea of what my reactions mean. Maybe this way of being has to be better understood before people are less likely to misinterpret lack of judgmentalism. )
So, if i intend to be aware of my predilections or aversions to what or who appears in front of me (or what i think about), perhaps that intent to be aware is all i can do? From that maybe something can grow...
have an intention,
to be aware of dis like.
then may be what is.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
the ocean of me
i like the analogy of the ocean being a metaphor for consciousness (all that is) and a wave as a temporary manifestation of the whole being a metaphor for individual people (or souls).
i am sleeping in a caravan in Melbourne at the moment and each morning i wake to the sound of surf, which is strange as the nearest ocean is 70 kilometers away. Then i realised that it was the sound of the freeway which was only 1 km away.
My first reaction was to feel ripped off as the sound of surf is a 'good' sound and the sound of cars is a 'bad' sound. That was until i remembered that the difference between them isn't 'out there', it is in my mind.
Further to that, remembering that each car had at least 1 person in it and the total that made up the sound of surf is beyond my comprehension (i'm guessing hundreds of thousands) and they are really all me. (phew!)
This has been a bit of a theme for me since i have been here in Melbourne. The other day we drove to the bay (about 20 km), it took an hour and we never left the suburbs. Yesterday, i was having my morning poop and as i wiped my bum i flashed with awe on the fact that each day i wipe my bum 21 million times and that is just in Australia.
Each car is a wave
in the ocean of me.
Making sounds of surf
i am sleeping in a caravan in Melbourne at the moment and each morning i wake to the sound of surf, which is strange as the nearest ocean is 70 kilometers away. Then i realised that it was the sound of the freeway which was only 1 km away.
My first reaction was to feel ripped off as the sound of surf is a 'good' sound and the sound of cars is a 'bad' sound. That was until i remembered that the difference between them isn't 'out there', it is in my mind.
Further to that, remembering that each car had at least 1 person in it and the total that made up the sound of surf is beyond my comprehension (i'm guessing hundreds of thousands) and they are really all me. (phew!)
This has been a bit of a theme for me since i have been here in Melbourne. The other day we drove to the bay (about 20 km), it took an hour and we never left the suburbs. Yesterday, i was having my morning poop and as i wiped my bum i flashed with awe on the fact that each day i wipe my bum 21 million times and that is just in Australia.
Each car is a wave
in the ocean of me.
Making sounds of surf
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
i can't give up - i can't not give up.
i can't give up the search, or more accurately i can't give up the wanting to attain liberation (the advaita cops will get me for that phraseology )
i can't choose what i want to want, or more accurately i can't choose to not want.
Just like i can't choose what my next thought will be.
i can not give up
the wanting to know reality
though it doesn't help
i can't choose what i want to want, or more accurately i can't choose to not want.
Just like i can't choose what my next thought will be.
i can not give up
the wanting to know reality
though it doesn't help
Friday, April 22, 2011
I truly obtained nothing from Enlightenment.
Buddha said: 'I truly obtained nothing from Enlightenment.' There is just a mysterious tacit understanding and no more."
Maybe he (before realisation) obtained understanding, and post realisation knew the he from before was an illusion. So the emphasis was on the 'I' not obtaining.
i only think that
i am I until I dies
then i am not i
Maybe he (before realisation) obtained understanding, and post realisation knew the he from before was an illusion. So the emphasis was on the 'I' not obtaining.
i only think that
i am I until I dies
then i am not i
more ramblings...
what i imagine is that when itching arises, that the compulsion to scratch that arises will simply be observed and then casually dismissed as "inappropriate" to act on. That there won't be scratching as an outcome.
Currently, scratching almost always ensues.
what i imagine is that Seeing, when it is present (which i assume will be constant) contributes a space which allows intelligence (as opposed to emotional) reactions to occur.
what i believe is that both the above imaginings are just concepts.
what i imagine is that this existence only has 'reality' from inside this existence.
what i imagine is that when I 'wake up' that i will be in another existence that includes this one, and that this one will be 'seen' as a minor part of that new (to me/who?) existence and that from that perspective "i" will be seen as a figment of the imagination of the "i" that i imagine myself to be now.
i am so confused
about just who is confused
confusion's ok
Currently, scratching almost always ensues.
what i imagine is that Seeing, when it is present (which i assume will be constant) contributes a space which allows intelligence (as opposed to emotional) reactions to occur.
what i believe is that both the above imaginings are just concepts.
what i imagine is that this existence only has 'reality' from inside this existence.
what i imagine is that when I 'wake up' that i will be in another existence that includes this one, and that this one will be 'seen' as a minor part of that new (to me/who?) existence and that from that perspective "i" will be seen as a figment of the imagination of the "i" that i imagine myself to be now.
i am so confused
about just who is confused
confusion's ok
a different kind of 'doing'
Abandon every attempt, just be; don't strive, don't struggle, let go every support, hold on to the blind sense of being, brushing off all else. This is enough. Nisargadatta Maharaj
You cannot control your way to freedom. You cannot concentrate your way to heaven. If you want to find it, see that the very idea of "someone who is in control" is a concept created by the mind, and lay it down. Don't touch it. If you touch it, it will bite you. Surrender is the ticket, and there is nowhere to get to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)