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?'
Saturday, August 27, 2011
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.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
immense earnestness
For this [seeking Reality], you need a well-ordered and quiet life, peace of mind and immense earnestness. At every moment whatever comes to you unasked, comes from God and will surely help you, if you make the fullest use of it. It is only what you strive for, out of your own imagination and desire, that gives you trouble. Nisargadatta Maharaj
How does intent to reach 'self realisation' and immense earnestness manifest ?
If i keep intent alive and current, is that earnestness ?
if i want a lot
and keep the interest alive
is that earnestness ?
How does intent to reach 'self realisation' and immense earnestness manifest ?
If i keep intent alive and current, is that earnestness ?
if i want a lot
and keep the interest alive
is that earnestness ?
i thought i had paid for entry...
When you have allowed, attended and understood what seems to be within, you are freed. Katie Davis
i do not experience myself as free. Does this mean that i have not fulfilled all of the above ?
i imagine that i have, but the evidence says i haven't.
But still there is nothing to do.
Surrender to 'what is' sounds like doing. Is allowing a doing ?
Is accepting a doing ?
If i change from resisting to allowing, am i doing something?
If i change from not attending to allowing attention... (can i make attention or only intend it ?)
When i meditate (what i call meditation) i intend to keep attentive but become aware that i was lost in a dream - and then i am attentive again (until the next losing)
This same sequence occurs every day. In fact my whole life displays this sequence. i'm lost in a dream, i realise i have been lost and become attentive, until the next time i become attentive realising i was lost in a dream.
i have no judgemental-ism about this. (i do sometimes feel sadness at the frequency of it, so i guess some part of me says it shouldn't be) but mainly i understand it to be just 'the way it is' and allow it (i really have no choice anyway)
hmmm, Peter Marjason says it beautifully, powerfully, succinctly - no choice.
i do, i don't do
i watch it all then accept
i do, i don't do.
i do not experience myself as free. Does this mean that i have not fulfilled all of the above ?
i imagine that i have, but the evidence says i haven't.
But still there is nothing to do.
Surrender to 'what is' sounds like doing. Is allowing a doing ?
Is accepting a doing ?
If i change from resisting to allowing, am i doing something?
If i change from not attending to allowing attention... (can i make attention or only intend it ?)
When i meditate (what i call meditation) i intend to keep attentive but become aware that i was lost in a dream - and then i am attentive again (until the next losing)
This same sequence occurs every day. In fact my whole life displays this sequence. i'm lost in a dream, i realise i have been lost and become attentive, until the next time i become attentive realising i was lost in a dream.
i have no judgemental-ism about this. (i do sometimes feel sadness at the frequency of it, so i guess some part of me says it shouldn't be) but mainly i understand it to be just 'the way it is' and allow it (i really have no choice anyway)
hmmm, Peter Marjason says it beautifully, powerfully, succinctly - no choice.
i do, i don't do
i watch it all then accept
i do, i don't do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)