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.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)