The experience of freedom is not freedom. It's just an experience. Does this get your goat, get under your skin? What else would be disturbed by the thought that there is no free will, other than ego.
True freedom is beyond freedom or bondage. It is prior to the concept of freedom. It is prior to any experience of freedom. It is so free it doesn't know the experience of freedom.
If there is only one Source, one Being, where is anything other to choose?
The body/mind doesn't have all knowledge available, so making choices can seem like options actually do exist. But this is surface experience. It is not fundamental.
If one goes deeper, it is easily seen that thoughts and feelings contribute to the decision made. But even these thoughts and feelings are the results of manifestation. Results of DNA, conditioning, experience.
Freedom is what all this is manifested from. All freedom belongs to the absolute, not to the individual. Like all other experience, the experience of freedom is just that, an experience.
True freedom will join you to your destiny with grace. It is choiceless, accepting, and beyond the necessity of any experience of freedom. You are that freedom. Enjoy!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Two Perspectives
There are two basic perspectives in life. The perspective from the absolute and the perspective from separation. 99.9% of people experience only one of them. The experience of separation.
The fact that 99.9% of humans have only experienced separation does not invalidate the experience of the Absolute. Both can be defended, neither can be proved.
There is a personal embodied self which we all know very well. There is the impersonal One Self, without form. We are both.
The embodied self is hard wired to survive, and as long as survival is our primary motive, this is the only self we will ever know. To know the Impersonal Self, one will have to go a lot deeper, and risk everything into the unknown.
Since the path into the unknown, is by definition, unknowable, we find ourselves in a quandary. Very much like a who-done-it, we have clues, but no end in sight.
The major clue we have is the "still small voice" that is heard when we hope without knowing. A faith in things unseen. Unbidden, but there. Not always a gentle voice, as it is often a gnawing in the gut, a feeling that something is missing.
Do we follow the "still small voice?" Or do we resist because we do not know who is calling, or where it will lead us? If we are quiet and listen, we faintly hear, "Go to the tiger's lair, and stick your head in the tiger's mouth."
You sane one's quickly turn up the volume and walk away, so the still small voice cannot be heard in the din. But the crazy one, whom you shun, seeks the tiger's lair, places his head in the tiger's mouth, and shouts,"Bite, you son of a bitch, Bite!"
The fact that 99.9% of humans have only experienced separation does not invalidate the experience of the Absolute. Both can be defended, neither can be proved.
There is a personal embodied self which we all know very well. There is the impersonal One Self, without form. We are both.
The embodied self is hard wired to survive, and as long as survival is our primary motive, this is the only self we will ever know. To know the Impersonal Self, one will have to go a lot deeper, and risk everything into the unknown.
Since the path into the unknown, is by definition, unknowable, we find ourselves in a quandary. Very much like a who-done-it, we have clues, but no end in sight.
The major clue we have is the "still small voice" that is heard when we hope without knowing. A faith in things unseen. Unbidden, but there. Not always a gentle voice, as it is often a gnawing in the gut, a feeling that something is missing.
Do we follow the "still small voice?" Or do we resist because we do not know who is calling, or where it will lead us? If we are quiet and listen, we faintly hear, "Go to the tiger's lair, and stick your head in the tiger's mouth."
You sane one's quickly turn up the volume and walk away, so the still small voice cannot be heard in the din. But the crazy one, whom you shun, seeks the tiger's lair, places his head in the tiger's mouth, and shouts,"Bite, you son of a bitch, Bite!"
Monday, August 18, 2008
Moonbeams Guide My Way
I don't chase rainbows anymore.
Moonbeams guide my way.
I land nowhere,
where everything is okay.
Where is nowhere?
Right here. Right here!
Traveling this way,
where everything is okay,
just the way it is,
is very light.
The ordinary has no limits.
It sets no agenda.
No conditions.
No expectations.
Freedom reigns.
No horse to rein in.
No clouds to chase.
Just sitting here, nowhere,
is good enough.
Moonbeams guide my way.
I land nowhere,
where everything is okay.
Where is nowhere?
Right here. Right here!
Traveling this way,
where everything is okay,
just the way it is,
is very light.
The ordinary has no limits.
It sets no agenda.
No conditions.
No expectations.
Freedom reigns.
No horse to rein in.
No clouds to chase.
Just sitting here, nowhere,
is good enough.
Be in the world, but not of it
Being in the world.
As manifested, we humans come into the world with physical needs and desires. We come, forgetting home, feeling alone, having to survive. And so the travails of the world fall upon us like so many thieves. We hoard, we fuss and fight.
And thus we struggle. There is no path that we discern. In darkness we travel on. We stumble, fall, and pick ourselves up, again and again. Tired and weary, we see that things might be better a different way.
We don't know how we got here, or why we are here. We search the stars, wondering if we might be star dust, lost here without our light. And then, perhaps, we start to see another way.
But not of it.
Some still small voice keeps telling us that things are not as they seem. It tells us to look at our troubles in a different way. Only a change of perspective will free us from this woe. With this, our only hope, we accept that this is a pathless land.
When we begin to acknowledge that helping our neighbor, and treating them as ourself, makes things easier. And then we wonder why this works.
A little light comes in, and though there is no path, the light does show us one step at a time. So we learn to be here now, moment by moment, trusting something, we know not what.
And if we persist, and open to this truth, our neighbor becomes ourself, and we are not alone. And then, in time, with letting go, and with letting be, the whole thing opens to a new light, a new world. And we are One. We are now "in the world, but not of it."
As manifested, we humans come into the world with physical needs and desires. We come, forgetting home, feeling alone, having to survive. And so the travails of the world fall upon us like so many thieves. We hoard, we fuss and fight.
And thus we struggle. There is no path that we discern. In darkness we travel on. We stumble, fall, and pick ourselves up, again and again. Tired and weary, we see that things might be better a different way.
We don't know how we got here, or why we are here. We search the stars, wondering if we might be star dust, lost here without our light. And then, perhaps, we start to see another way.
But not of it.
Some still small voice keeps telling us that things are not as they seem. It tells us to look at our troubles in a different way. Only a change of perspective will free us from this woe. With this, our only hope, we accept that this is a pathless land.
When we begin to acknowledge that helping our neighbor, and treating them as ourself, makes things easier. And then we wonder why this works.
A little light comes in, and though there is no path, the light does show us one step at a time. So we learn to be here now, moment by moment, trusting something, we know not what.
And if we persist, and open to this truth, our neighbor becomes ourself, and we are not alone. And then, in time, with letting go, and with letting be, the whole thing opens to a new light, a new world. And we are One. We are now "in the world, but not of it."
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
The Semantics of Enlightenment
When someone wakes up, we say they are awakened, or realized, or enlightened. How can we tell a friend to go see that person if there is no one there? We are speaking here of the awakened teacher's stance that there is no one here, only "awakeness."
Despite what the teacher says, he says it from a body. And what he says isn't heard out of the mouth of others. If you want to know what he has to say, you have to go to him. Although the guru experiences no separateness, and says that his condition is impersonal, it is very personal to seekers and students.
Obviously words are not adequate. There is a body-mind out of which wise sayings, paradoxical statements may come, but the teacher says, there is no one here. In fact, that may be the teacher's experience. "The eye with which I see God, is the same eye through which God sees me," said Meister Eckart.
And yet, there are other teachers who willingly acknowledge that they are enlightened. Why the difference?
Valid teachers take both positions. Ramesh Balsekar for one, willingly admits that he is enlightened. But his teachings are certainly non dual, and his stance in the Impersonal is clear and profound. Karl Renz is another.
Valid teachers speak both ways, some claiming there is no enlightened person, and the others claiming they are enlightened. Tony Parsons is a good example of the no teacher, no student, type, yet the truth of the non dual reality shines through his apparent self very well.
The student goes to the teacher to hear this wisdom because he can't get it from his neighbor. Surely this points to the fact that enlightenment exists in some body-minds, and not others. Or better said, Awareness reveals itself more through one form than another. Still, the students will flock to the teacher with more Awareness.
Saying that everyone is enlightened misses the mark. Everyone is, ultimately, awareness Itself. But Awareness manifests the multiple, and the multiple is separate in body, needs, temperament, etc. So it does little good to speak of "Everyone's already enlightened," and forget any other teaching.
We in enlightenment circles have got ourselves in a semantic quagmire, and for the sake of students, we need to dig ourselves out. We speak of "apparent" persons, "apparent" teachers, and saying "There is no teacher, and no student."
On the level of Awareness, this is correct. But in normal experience, and for the average person, ignoring their perspective, their reference points, is of little help.
Of course the frustration of some students might catapult them into understanding. But these would be few. The majority of seekers will be simply lost. They won't be helped, They won't get understanding.
Do we want to increase confusion? Or do we want to attempt clarity. What is wrong with standing up and saying, "I am a teacher. I know something." Why not be a teacher? And why not let the student be a student?
At some point the student may understand that there is neither student or teacher, but do we start out teaching from there? In Nisargadatta's later years he got picky, saying that his teaching was only for advanced students. This was great discernment on his part.
Many are being lost in enlightened semantics. This may be why Jesus spoke in parables. A parable steps beyond words into a story. If you get the meaning, the truth of it, without words, you've got more than if you read a thousand books.
If you teach so as to confuse, to cause a break in the seeker's mind, go ahead and confuse. But the seeker isn't coming for more confusion, he's coming for clarity. Clarity from the position he sees, stepping stones to greater understanding. If you can't acknowledge where the student is, why are you teaching?
Speaking from the Impersonal Absolute may be fine for the advanced student, but for the majority of students, speaking only from the absolute perspective doesn't help. You need to point from where they are.
The awakened one can shout from the rooftop all day long that "There is no one here," but who will believe him? There is obviously someone up on the roof shouting. One has to conclude that there is certainly a different point of view coming from observers on the ground, and the one shouting from the roof.
Despite what the teacher says, he says it from a body. And what he says isn't heard out of the mouth of others. If you want to know what he has to say, you have to go to him. Although the guru experiences no separateness, and says that his condition is impersonal, it is very personal to seekers and students.
Obviously words are not adequate. There is a body-mind out of which wise sayings, paradoxical statements may come, but the teacher says, there is no one here. In fact, that may be the teacher's experience. "The eye with which I see God, is the same eye through which God sees me," said Meister Eckart.
And yet, there are other teachers who willingly acknowledge that they are enlightened. Why the difference?
Valid teachers take both positions. Ramesh Balsekar for one, willingly admits that he is enlightened. But his teachings are certainly non dual, and his stance in the Impersonal is clear and profound. Karl Renz is another.
Valid teachers speak both ways, some claiming there is no enlightened person, and the others claiming they are enlightened. Tony Parsons is a good example of the no teacher, no student, type, yet the truth of the non dual reality shines through his apparent self very well.
The student goes to the teacher to hear this wisdom because he can't get it from his neighbor. Surely this points to the fact that enlightenment exists in some body-minds, and not others. Or better said, Awareness reveals itself more through one form than another. Still, the students will flock to the teacher with more Awareness.
Saying that everyone is enlightened misses the mark. Everyone is, ultimately, awareness Itself. But Awareness manifests the multiple, and the multiple is separate in body, needs, temperament, etc. So it does little good to speak of "Everyone's already enlightened," and forget any other teaching.
We in enlightenment circles have got ourselves in a semantic quagmire, and for the sake of students, we need to dig ourselves out. We speak of "apparent" persons, "apparent" teachers, and saying "There is no teacher, and no student."
On the level of Awareness, this is correct. But in normal experience, and for the average person, ignoring their perspective, their reference points, is of little help.
Of course the frustration of some students might catapult them into understanding. But these would be few. The majority of seekers will be simply lost. They won't be helped, They won't get understanding.
Do we want to increase confusion? Or do we want to attempt clarity. What is wrong with standing up and saying, "I am a teacher. I know something." Why not be a teacher? And why not let the student be a student?
At some point the student may understand that there is neither student or teacher, but do we start out teaching from there? In Nisargadatta's later years he got picky, saying that his teaching was only for advanced students. This was great discernment on his part.
Many are being lost in enlightened semantics. This may be why Jesus spoke in parables. A parable steps beyond words into a story. If you get the meaning, the truth of it, without words, you've got more than if you read a thousand books.
If you teach so as to confuse, to cause a break in the seeker's mind, go ahead and confuse. But the seeker isn't coming for more confusion, he's coming for clarity. Clarity from the position he sees, stepping stones to greater understanding. If you can't acknowledge where the student is, why are you teaching?
Speaking from the Impersonal Absolute may be fine for the advanced student, but for the majority of students, speaking only from the absolute perspective doesn't help. You need to point from where they are.
The awakened one can shout from the rooftop all day long that "There is no one here," but who will believe him? There is obviously someone up on the roof shouting. One has to conclude that there is certainly a different point of view coming from observers on the ground, and the one shouting from the roof.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
The Process
Remember that heaven can be a inch from hell. The suffering burns up the resistance - not that one should look for suffering, or prolong it.
For some it is not really helpful to think of the Ego as an illusion. Just experiencing oneself as you are is enough. Calling it ego, or any other label is just mentalization.
If you are suffering, just be with that suffering. It is only made worse trying to analyze it as "illusion" or any other label.
Whatever you call it, ego, small self, separation, at some point relief may come from letting go. For those of a religious background, the prayer, "Thy will be done," may be helpful.
On "Realization" many say they are home. It is so familiar that the question arises, "How did I ever feel that I had left this place?" You may not experience being "home" now, but that is your destination. Self never left. Only the experience of self, embodied, feels separate.
Your real Self is already there. Pure awareness. At this time it may be covered with the veil of ego, separation, embodiment, however you name it. But the veil is a veil. It does part. Every curtain is opened a different way.
Self allows whatever experience you are having now. You can only trust that your real Self knows what it is doing. Just acknowledge that all there is, is what you are. There is only this, it knows, and it is love.
The way is through a pathless land. Every person will process differently. If you've done a lot of reading, just let it all rest in the background, your path is unique. Yours will have similarities to some, and not to others. If you believe in karma, it may help to know that you may be undoing something from the past of which you are not currently aware.
The first time I read Krishnamurti, I had no idea who he was, or what his background was, or what his message was. Halfway through the book, "You are the World," I was overwhelmed with a sense of forgiveness, reduced to a fetal position on the bathroom floor. The crying was so intense, I fled had fled to the bathroom so as not to scare the other residents of the home. Since that time I have tried to find what page or passage brought on the breakthrough of self forgiveness, but can't.
For about six months after that I cried watching TV, seeing movies, reading. I would cry at the beauty of everything, faces, trees, people. There were many unitive experiences. They have all passed. If I wanted to suffer now, I could tell myself I'm not there because I'm not having those experiences any more. But why would I do that to myself? I no longer place conditions on what is.
Some eggs crack in half suddenly with a great blast of light. Some fissure and crack in a thousand little lines and see the light brighten slowly.
After the break into self forgiveness, reading K., I could only continually gush and talk about the experiences I was having. My father, a Baptist missionary, knew the signs of conversion, but he knew nothing of enlightenment.
All he could say was that I had had a conversion experience. He had no way of knowing that it was deeper than that. The experience of oneness, of unity, of love for everything is not a belief, it is not a conversion to any sect, but a break. A break from any sect, any religion. No prescribed beliefs can contain Oneness.
There is no way to know for sure whether you are experiencing kundalini or just mundane aches and pains. When the experiences are intense and extremely varied, and doctors can't find anything physically causing them, then maybe one can say it is kundalini. As with anything about the process of waking up, there is no Rx, no prescription. Keep any knowledge tentative.
With the ecstasies, when most intense, I felt that I had to let it go of the experience because there was no way of functioning in the world while in that state. At the same time, I don't know how I can say that "I" let go, because in that bliss there is NO self. The most intense ecstasies only lasted a few minutes. The long unitive states, less intense, allowed me to function but gave a whole new perspective to what life really is. Seeing beauty everywhere was a big part of that.
The Buddha said that simply knowing of enlightenment is a great boon. However, knowing that there is an alternate way of experiencing the world, but not being there, can cause suffering. Psychologically it is called cognitive dissonance.
Therapy does help. This one did Gestalt therapy in groups for many years which resulted in Primals as described by Arthur Janov. That was the process experienced here. Again, not an Rx, not a prescription.
You are the One embodied as a unique one. Your process will be yours alone. But home is home for all alike.
For some it is not really helpful to think of the Ego as an illusion. Just experiencing oneself as you are is enough. Calling it ego, or any other label is just mentalization.
If you are suffering, just be with that suffering. It is only made worse trying to analyze it as "illusion" or any other label.
Whatever you call it, ego, small self, separation, at some point relief may come from letting go. For those of a religious background, the prayer, "Thy will be done," may be helpful.
On "Realization" many say they are home. It is so familiar that the question arises, "How did I ever feel that I had left this place?" You may not experience being "home" now, but that is your destination. Self never left. Only the experience of self, embodied, feels separate.
Your real Self is already there. Pure awareness. At this time it may be covered with the veil of ego, separation, embodiment, however you name it. But the veil is a veil. It does part. Every curtain is opened a different way.
Self allows whatever experience you are having now. You can only trust that your real Self knows what it is doing. Just acknowledge that all there is, is what you are. There is only this, it knows, and it is love.
The way is through a pathless land. Every person will process differently. If you've done a lot of reading, just let it all rest in the background, your path is unique. Yours will have similarities to some, and not to others. If you believe in karma, it may help to know that you may be undoing something from the past of which you are not currently aware.
The first time I read Krishnamurti, I had no idea who he was, or what his background was, or what his message was. Halfway through the book, "You are the World," I was overwhelmed with a sense of forgiveness, reduced to a fetal position on the bathroom floor. The crying was so intense, I fled had fled to the bathroom so as not to scare the other residents of the home. Since that time I have tried to find what page or passage brought on the breakthrough of self forgiveness, but can't.
For about six months after that I cried watching TV, seeing movies, reading. I would cry at the beauty of everything, faces, trees, people. There were many unitive experiences. They have all passed. If I wanted to suffer now, I could tell myself I'm not there because I'm not having those experiences any more. But why would I do that to myself? I no longer place conditions on what is.
Some eggs crack in half suddenly with a great blast of light. Some fissure and crack in a thousand little lines and see the light brighten slowly.
After the break into self forgiveness, reading K., I could only continually gush and talk about the experiences I was having. My father, a Baptist missionary, knew the signs of conversion, but he knew nothing of enlightenment.
All he could say was that I had had a conversion experience. He had no way of knowing that it was deeper than that. The experience of oneness, of unity, of love for everything is not a belief, it is not a conversion to any sect, but a break. A break from any sect, any religion. No prescribed beliefs can contain Oneness.
There is no way to know for sure whether you are experiencing kundalini or just mundane aches and pains. When the experiences are intense and extremely varied, and doctors can't find anything physically causing them, then maybe one can say it is kundalini. As with anything about the process of waking up, there is no Rx, no prescription. Keep any knowledge tentative.
With the ecstasies, when most intense, I felt that I had to let it go of the experience because there was no way of functioning in the world while in that state. At the same time, I don't know how I can say that "I" let go, because in that bliss there is NO self. The most intense ecstasies only lasted a few minutes. The long unitive states, less intense, allowed me to function but gave a whole new perspective to what life really is. Seeing beauty everywhere was a big part of that.
The Buddha said that simply knowing of enlightenment is a great boon. However, knowing that there is an alternate way of experiencing the world, but not being there, can cause suffering. Psychologically it is called cognitive dissonance.
Therapy does help. This one did Gestalt therapy in groups for many years which resulted in Primals as described by Arthur Janov. That was the process experienced here. Again, not an Rx, not a prescription.
You are the One embodied as a unique one. Your process will be yours alone. But home is home for all alike.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
You Already Know
In the end, you just give up. Then you see that you already knew it. You were just trying to spin it to suit your intellect. For example, I read everything that Krishnamurti ever wrote. I knew that he knew It, whatever that was, enlightenment, the absolute, God, Krishnamurti had it.
In reflection, how could I possibly know he had it, if I didn't have it? Many times I heard myself speaking to others about how I could read one page of a spiritual author and know if he REALLY knew. How could I possibly have known that if I didn't?
Somehow, I didn't stay with that, pursue that question. It seems I was just not ready to acknowledge that I must know as well. How little I thought I was. And yet, if we are That, then aren't we grand? Was I not listening?
So, some part of me knew absolutely. What I was doing was looking for confirmation. I was willing to know through someone else, someone on whom I had projected that knowing authority; someone with whom that knowing could resonate. But I was unwilling to acknowledge my own knowing.
What does it take, for those of us who sense that knowing in others, to take ownership for ourselves? Where do we get this self distrust? Is it innate? Is it conditioning? These questions need not be answered. What needs to be answered is this: How is it that I know that "X" knows.
If "X" knows, and I am certain of that, how can I not know? I must know! I do know! And if you've had that experience, then you know too.
Are there markers on the way? Do we have to put notches on our bed post? One for each experience we think we've passed on the search? I don't think so.
Remember, any experiences, even kundalini experiences, are not necessary. They may happen. They may not. Descriptions of happenings are just what happened to one individual. They are not prescriptions. Just take note. Be aware.
Knowledge is great. It can help you relax. But knowing is being. Real knowing is subjective. You have to learn to trust yourself. When you trust yourself enough, you can let go. Only then, when you relax, does the still small voice sound loud and clear.
Only the experience of this is personal. In truth it is all Impersonal. The Atman is having a personal experience. You are that. A personal expression of Impersonal Being.
Kundalini pains and pleasures may occur. They may not. They may come and go depending on what chakra is affected. They don't necessarily open in a certain sequence. Don't dwell on it. Some people don't have them.
Of course the ecstasies are great. But they too pass. Kundalini is not something to pursue. But it is good to know that kundalini experiences may occur. Just the knowledge might keep you out of the hospital. Especially when the doctors can find nothing wrong. Kundalini experiences are just sometimes a side effect of moving though blocks to deeper awareness.
In the end, the ordinary is beautiful.
And when you wake up, just being awake doesn't make one a teacher. Many complain that as great as a teacher may be, some just don't seem to have any awakened students. Krishnamurti is one of whom this has been said.
In my case, Krishnamurti woke me up. I just didn't recognize it at the time. My own father, who was a Baptist minister, told me I had had a conversion experience. He was pissed off because he thought I had been converted to Zen. But it was deeper than that.
Of course this pointing to the absolute is useless if you can't own it yourself. The words are just pointers. And poor ones at that. What you are looking for is the subjective, personal, experience. That which comes on so strong that you can't deny it, or even question it, because it comes with so much authority.
However, YOU already know. Just allow yourself to savor that. And Keep in mind that you can't do anything with it." This is not personal. It only seems that way. In fact, it is an Impersonal experience.
It may affect you personally, but it's not something you can own. It is an impersonal process that is happening through you. Don't take it personally. Just align yourself with IT. That's all the personal you can do.
Keep the prayer in mind, "Thy will be done." That's your only contribution. If your intent is strong, the part of you that knows, the still small voice, will be heard.
True seeing has often occurred, but the ego self just won't acknowledge it. You then spend another 20 or 30 years looking for what you've already found. You just want the seeing to be a certain way, a way that your intellect will agree with.
Just relax, and what you already know will come forth. The truth does not need to be forced. It is not loud. It is gentle. It speaks in a soft voice, even silence. Just "let it be."
In reflection, how could I possibly know he had it, if I didn't have it? Many times I heard myself speaking to others about how I could read one page of a spiritual author and know if he REALLY knew. How could I possibly have known that if I didn't?
Somehow, I didn't stay with that, pursue that question. It seems I was just not ready to acknowledge that I must know as well. How little I thought I was. And yet, if we are That, then aren't we grand? Was I not listening?
So, some part of me knew absolutely. What I was doing was looking for confirmation. I was willing to know through someone else, someone on whom I had projected that knowing authority; someone with whom that knowing could resonate. But I was unwilling to acknowledge my own knowing.
What does it take, for those of us who sense that knowing in others, to take ownership for ourselves? Where do we get this self distrust? Is it innate? Is it conditioning? These questions need not be answered. What needs to be answered is this: How is it that I know that "X" knows.
If "X" knows, and I am certain of that, how can I not know? I must know! I do know! And if you've had that experience, then you know too.
Are there markers on the way? Do we have to put notches on our bed post? One for each experience we think we've passed on the search? I don't think so.
Remember, any experiences, even kundalini experiences, are not necessary. They may happen. They may not. Descriptions of happenings are just what happened to one individual. They are not prescriptions. Just take note. Be aware.
Knowledge is great. It can help you relax. But knowing is being. Real knowing is subjective. You have to learn to trust yourself. When you trust yourself enough, you can let go. Only then, when you relax, does the still small voice sound loud and clear.
Only the experience of this is personal. In truth it is all Impersonal. The Atman is having a personal experience. You are that. A personal expression of Impersonal Being.
Kundalini pains and pleasures may occur. They may not. They may come and go depending on what chakra is affected. They don't necessarily open in a certain sequence. Don't dwell on it. Some people don't have them.
Of course the ecstasies are great. But they too pass. Kundalini is not something to pursue. But it is good to know that kundalini experiences may occur. Just the knowledge might keep you out of the hospital. Especially when the doctors can find nothing wrong. Kundalini experiences are just sometimes a side effect of moving though blocks to deeper awareness.
In the end, the ordinary is beautiful.
And when you wake up, just being awake doesn't make one a teacher. Many complain that as great as a teacher may be, some just don't seem to have any awakened students. Krishnamurti is one of whom this has been said.
In my case, Krishnamurti woke me up. I just didn't recognize it at the time. My own father, who was a Baptist minister, told me I had had a conversion experience. He was pissed off because he thought I had been converted to Zen. But it was deeper than that.
Of course this pointing to the absolute is useless if you can't own it yourself. The words are just pointers. And poor ones at that. What you are looking for is the subjective, personal, experience. That which comes on so strong that you can't deny it, or even question it, because it comes with so much authority.
However, YOU already know. Just allow yourself to savor that. And Keep in mind that you can't do anything with it." This is not personal. It only seems that way. In fact, it is an Impersonal experience.
It may affect you personally, but it's not something you can own. It is an impersonal process that is happening through you. Don't take it personally. Just align yourself with IT. That's all the personal you can do.
Keep the prayer in mind, "Thy will be done." That's your only contribution. If your intent is strong, the part of you that knows, the still small voice, will be heard.
True seeing has often occurred, but the ego self just won't acknowledge it. You then spend another 20 or 30 years looking for what you've already found. You just want the seeing to be a certain way, a way that your intellect will agree with.
Just relax, and what you already know will come forth. The truth does not need to be forced. It is not loud. It is gentle. It speaks in a soft voice, even silence. Just "let it be."
Sunday, August 3, 2008
The Field
When you look around a room you see many separate objects, but they are all in the field of vision. All the objects in the field show shape, color, texture, but they are all in one field. Your field of vision.
If you sniffed the air, you might smell flowers, dust, vegetables cooking on the stove. All these distinct smells are separate but are all in the field of smell.
If you walked around and touched the objects in the room, they would all feel different: soft, rough, prickly, smooth, etc. But all would be within the field of touch.
The apparent separateness of all these objects is an interpretation of the mind only. In the sense of sight, colors and textures differentiate. But all the colors are in the filed of sight, made of light.
Physically, some of the objects can be moved around. You can move your furniture around, change the placement of paintings on the wall, and yet they all remain in the field of sight.
You can open the windows, clear the smells in the room, and now you can only smell fresh air. Yet despite the change, what is there is still in the field, the sense of smell.
All these ways of sensing the world are just interpretations of the field. If someone else enters the room, they can verify that you are in the field as well.
You can use words to share with the other person your sense of the room. Words are useful because they take pieces of the field and box them up in little containers, defined with borders and limits.
The boxes of words enable communication. Such a wonderful tool. But the boxes of words do not really separate the objects in the room. They just break the filed conceptually, allowing us to talk about a particular aspect, such as the painting on the wall.
But all the interpretations, be they from the senses, from words, from concepts, do not really break and separate the field. The field is one.
We seem to be mesmerized by our interpretations. They are useful, after all. But we have fallen into the boxes that our senses, our concepts have created. We no longer see that the field is one, that we are one.
One big giant field of varying energies is what we are in. It's one big soup. And where is this field of energy? It's in the mind of God. Nowhere, but there.
As the mystics say, all is One. Only the various ways of interpreting the energies separates. The filed is one. The field is aware, and all interpretations are in the field as consciousness.
As the gurus say, "All there is consciousness."
If you sniffed the air, you might smell flowers, dust, vegetables cooking on the stove. All these distinct smells are separate but are all in the field of smell.
If you walked around and touched the objects in the room, they would all feel different: soft, rough, prickly, smooth, etc. But all would be within the field of touch.
The apparent separateness of all these objects is an interpretation of the mind only. In the sense of sight, colors and textures differentiate. But all the colors are in the filed of sight, made of light.
Physically, some of the objects can be moved around. You can move your furniture around, change the placement of paintings on the wall, and yet they all remain in the field of sight.
You can open the windows, clear the smells in the room, and now you can only smell fresh air. Yet despite the change, what is there is still in the field, the sense of smell.
All these ways of sensing the world are just interpretations of the field. If someone else enters the room, they can verify that you are in the field as well.
You can use words to share with the other person your sense of the room. Words are useful because they take pieces of the field and box them up in little containers, defined with borders and limits.
The boxes of words enable communication. Such a wonderful tool. But the boxes of words do not really separate the objects in the room. They just break the filed conceptually, allowing us to talk about a particular aspect, such as the painting on the wall.
But all the interpretations, be they from the senses, from words, from concepts, do not really break and separate the field. The field is one.
We seem to be mesmerized by our interpretations. They are useful, after all. But we have fallen into the boxes that our senses, our concepts have created. We no longer see that the field is one, that we are one.
One big giant field of varying energies is what we are in. It's one big soup. And where is this field of energy? It's in the mind of God. Nowhere, but there.
As the mystics say, all is One. Only the various ways of interpreting the energies separates. The filed is one. The field is aware, and all interpretations are in the field as consciousness.
As the gurus say, "All there is consciousness."
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Levels of Consciousness
The heart experience creates oneness via identity. As we be the change we want to see in the world, the world changes accordingly. Every thought, every feeling is recorded forever and affects all forever. That's quite enough power.
The nondual is and the apparent world is. They are not separate. Water has levels, the earth has levels of elevations, there are levels of heat, cold, roughness, radiation, and there are levels of consciousness. That is not to say that the levels are personal, since the field is one.
Soft light, bright light, absence of light, levels of brightness, and there are levels of consciousness. Depending on how you define or measure, levels can be determined.
Higher self, lower self, One Self. Who is who? One field, separate appearances. One Self, many selves. One up, one down. Ready, set go. Where?
All there is, is Love. One love, one heart. Let's get together and feel all right. Are lefties okay?
Bob Marley had a lot of love. Big heart. Are there levels of heart? Who's more loving?
Where's the beef? It's all in the pudding. There are levels in golf, tennis, pool, poker and horse racing. Who's the fastest? And there are levels of consciousness.
Does awareness enjoy different points of view? Does it know about the levels? Would "dumb as a rock" be a low level of consciousness? Would, "sharp as a tack" be a higher level of consciousness?
There are levels of neurosis, of ego, of self esteem. So are levels of consciousness not a possibility as well?
"Don't cast pearls before swine," said Jesus, meaning, at a level of consciousness that is not receptive. And, "let those with ears to hear, hear, .... for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." A higher level perhaps?
Where does the personal end and Impersonal begin? The real mystery is how we can entertain these thoughts when all is One. There are levels of consciousness.
The oxymoron of the "obvious" is that what is obvious to some is not even seen by the rest. Who's in charge here? The Mystery? Oh, yeah. Thumbs up.
Where are these words coming from? Are these mine? Or do they belong to the Mystery. Can we say what level of consciousness these words come from? Would they make sense to anyone? Or just the few.
Who's reading these words? Are you reading with your heart or with your brain. Can you feel which?
Is the Karmic playing field level? Is a mountainous region on higher ground? Are some places more sacred than others? Who says? Who cares?
The world is round. If you start at any place and walk straight, you will meet yourself on the other side. Is there a here and a there on this little planet? Or are we all only always here. And always now.
A cork in the ocean floats to the level of the wave. Just so, consciousness attracts that which is at its own level. Intentions are realized. Karma is nourished. All is well. You are you. And you are that. All is wonderful. All is as it is, and as it should be.
Gloria in Excelsis Deo!
The nondual is and the apparent world is. They are not separate. Water has levels, the earth has levels of elevations, there are levels of heat, cold, roughness, radiation, and there are levels of consciousness. That is not to say that the levels are personal, since the field is one.
Soft light, bright light, absence of light, levels of brightness, and there are levels of consciousness. Depending on how you define or measure, levels can be determined.
Higher self, lower self, One Self. Who is who? One field, separate appearances. One Self, many selves. One up, one down. Ready, set go. Where?
All there is, is Love. One love, one heart. Let's get together and feel all right. Are lefties okay?
Bob Marley had a lot of love. Big heart. Are there levels of heart? Who's more loving?
Where's the beef? It's all in the pudding. There are levels in golf, tennis, pool, poker and horse racing. Who's the fastest? And there are levels of consciousness.
Does awareness enjoy different points of view? Does it know about the levels? Would "dumb as a rock" be a low level of consciousness? Would, "sharp as a tack" be a higher level of consciousness?
There are levels of neurosis, of ego, of self esteem. So are levels of consciousness not a possibility as well?
"Don't cast pearls before swine," said Jesus, meaning, at a level of consciousness that is not receptive. And, "let those with ears to hear, hear, .... for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." A higher level perhaps?
Where does the personal end and Impersonal begin? The real mystery is how we can entertain these thoughts when all is One. There are levels of consciousness.
The oxymoron of the "obvious" is that what is obvious to some is not even seen by the rest. Who's in charge here? The Mystery? Oh, yeah. Thumbs up.
Where are these words coming from? Are these mine? Or do they belong to the Mystery. Can we say what level of consciousness these words come from? Would they make sense to anyone? Or just the few.
Who's reading these words? Are you reading with your heart or with your brain. Can you feel which?
Is the Karmic playing field level? Is a mountainous region on higher ground? Are some places more sacred than others? Who says? Who cares?
The world is round. If you start at any place and walk straight, you will meet yourself on the other side. Is there a here and a there on this little planet? Or are we all only always here. And always now.
A cork in the ocean floats to the level of the wave. Just so, consciousness attracts that which is at its own level. Intentions are realized. Karma is nourished. All is well. You are you. And you are that. All is wonderful. All is as it is, and as it should be.
Gloria in Excelsis Deo!
Friday, July 18, 2008
Knives in Their Heads
While the sugar plums danced in the plazas and squares, a number of them showed up with knives in their heads. The police were summoned. The poor sugar plums with knives stuck in their heads explained that the knives were only apparently there.
"It's a symbolic problem" they explained. "The knives are not real, and we did not stab ourselves in the head. No one did this to us. We are not even real, we are only apparently here."
The police did not take kindly to the joking around. So the captain asked what the knives symbolized. "Apparently, we're seekers, that's what we're called. A pain in the head called seeking, but we didn't think it showed."
"Well" said the captain, whether you are here or only apparently so, you must cover your heads or wear hats. You see, the apparent majority of sugar plums don't have knives in their heads. We don't want you to scare them."
The captain told the knively ones to go see their Parsons and Waite. The investigation continued, with liberals and traditionalists having their say. The neos were contrary and the conservatives stubborn.
In the end it was never agreed, one way or the other. An agreement could never be reached. Apparently no one ever came to the meetings. Only apparently so. The knives were symbolic, not even real, and the wounds didn't bleed. The wounds were apparently psychological or spiritual, and could not be found.
Meanwhile the sugar plums dance in the plazas and squares, oblivious to those who had been banished because of the knives in their heads. The seekers bled silently, dreaming in their beds, holding their heads. There was no one to rescue, and no one to teach. No one to heal. And no one to seek. .
"It's a symbolic problem" they explained. "The knives are not real, and we did not stab ourselves in the head. No one did this to us. We are not even real, we are only apparently here."
The police did not take kindly to the joking around. So the captain asked what the knives symbolized. "Apparently, we're seekers, that's what we're called. A pain in the head called seeking, but we didn't think it showed."
"Well" said the captain, whether you are here or only apparently so, you must cover your heads or wear hats. You see, the apparent majority of sugar plums don't have knives in their heads. We don't want you to scare them."
The captain told the knively ones to go see their Parsons and Waite. The investigation continued, with liberals and traditionalists having their say. The neos were contrary and the conservatives stubborn.
In the end it was never agreed, one way or the other. An agreement could never be reached. Apparently no one ever came to the meetings. Only apparently so. The knives were symbolic, not even real, and the wounds didn't bleed. The wounds were apparently psychological or spiritual, and could not be found.
Meanwhile the sugar plums dance in the plazas and squares, oblivious to those who had been banished because of the knives in their heads. The seekers bled silently, dreaming in their beds, holding their heads. There was no one to rescue, and no one to teach. No one to heal. And no one to seek. .
Friday, July 11, 2008
I think, therefore I am
I think, therefore I am is the simplest and truest statement of the false, or ego self. That thought begets all other self thoughts. Your whole identity is wrapped up in subsequent thoughts.
The "I" thought has taken over when you believe, "I think therefore I am." This is a false identity. You are prior to the "I" thought.
I am, therefore I think, is truer. At least it points to the "I am" that is prior to thought. Beingnes is multitude. And that's OK. But the truth is prior to the multitude that believes it is.
All bodies have a sense of beingness, of I amness. But, did any body create this sense? Did you create your own beingness as an individual? Or, did beingness arrive, unbidden, to take you for a drive? Take a look. Are you the driver? Or are you driven.
When the beingness arrived, it took a couple years for the mind to develop. At around two or three, the conceptual mind found it's first foothold as "I." The rest is a house of cards. The whole you that you think you are is based on this first "I" thought.
You have to go back to the original "I" thought and back track from there. The "I" thought is the result of Being in a body. You are the Beingness that created the body.
You can only think your way out of this by coming to the end of thought. Or, one might say, when thinking is no longer satisfactory, and sees its own limitation, perhaps there will just be seeing/knowing, without a thinker, without a you.
The "I" thought has taken over when you believe, "I think therefore I am." This is a false identity. You are prior to the "I" thought.
I am, therefore I think, is truer. At least it points to the "I am" that is prior to thought. Beingnes is multitude. And that's OK. But the truth is prior to the multitude that believes it is.
All bodies have a sense of beingness, of I amness. But, did any body create this sense? Did you create your own beingness as an individual? Or, did beingness arrive, unbidden, to take you for a drive? Take a look. Are you the driver? Or are you driven.
When the beingness arrived, it took a couple years for the mind to develop. At around two or three, the conceptual mind found it's first foothold as "I." The rest is a house of cards. The whole you that you think you are is based on this first "I" thought.
You have to go back to the original "I" thought and back track from there. The "I" thought is the result of Being in a body. You are the Beingness that created the body.
You can only think your way out of this by coming to the end of thought. Or, one might say, when thinking is no longer satisfactory, and sees its own limitation, perhaps there will just be seeing/knowing, without a thinker, without a you.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Viewing Furniture
Have you ever considered the point of view of furniture? It's rather amazing that so few have done so? It can be quite educational. Take a moment while sitting in your living room and observe your furniture. Each piece has a different purpose, each is labeled accordingly: table, chair, couch, footstool.
The labels and definitions are based on concepts, and the human purpose invested in the design. However, the objects themselves have no such identity or purpose. A wooden chair, for example, consists of wood, shaped in a particular way. But, does the chair know its purpose? Does a chair know its meaning?
Does a couch know that it is for sitting or laying on? Does a table know it is a surface for holding other objects, or for eating from? The whole meaning of these objects is a projection of the human mind.
A chair was conceived by the human mind, created by the human mind, and human hands. It's chairness is a human factor. To the chair, is there purpose? Does the chair know it is for sitting on? For the chair, is there such a thing as a chair?
To a very large extent our concepts of ourselves are just as meaningless as a chairness to a chair. We are programmed with ideas and concepts about ourselves that come from conditions that no longer exist. We are living our lives based on traditions that are no longer valid, and may in fact be harmful.
There may be some validity in looking at oneself as a peace of furniture. Realize that you might be rather presumptuous in your ideas about yourself. You may, in fact, have totally defined yourself by what you were told to believe. You may be living your life entirely based on projections you received from your parents, your brothers and sisters, and your culture. None of these are you.
As created beings we may not be in a position to know what our meaning is, our purpose. Having taken up our roles as prescribed by the play, we act them out with sound and fury, and yet unconsciously. Perhaps if we looked at ourselves as furniture in a room, we might discern a self nature that is something other than what we have projected on ourselves.
There is something deeper in us. An essence, undefinable, ineffable, yet knowing. We don't become aware of this essence, playing our prescribed roles. We become awareness by stepping aside, by letting go, by questioning our ideas and presumptions. Step back and observe oneself without ideas, and see what arises.
The labels and definitions are based on concepts, and the human purpose invested in the design. However, the objects themselves have no such identity or purpose. A wooden chair, for example, consists of wood, shaped in a particular way. But, does the chair know its purpose? Does a chair know its meaning?
Does a couch know that it is for sitting or laying on? Does a table know it is a surface for holding other objects, or for eating from? The whole meaning of these objects is a projection of the human mind.
A chair was conceived by the human mind, created by the human mind, and human hands. It's chairness is a human factor. To the chair, is there purpose? Does the chair know it is for sitting on? For the chair, is there such a thing as a chair?
To a very large extent our concepts of ourselves are just as meaningless as a chairness to a chair. We are programmed with ideas and concepts about ourselves that come from conditions that no longer exist. We are living our lives based on traditions that are no longer valid, and may in fact be harmful.
There may be some validity in looking at oneself as a peace of furniture. Realize that you might be rather presumptuous in your ideas about yourself. You may, in fact, have totally defined yourself by what you were told to believe. You may be living your life entirely based on projections you received from your parents, your brothers and sisters, and your culture. None of these are you.
As created beings we may not be in a position to know what our meaning is, our purpose. Having taken up our roles as prescribed by the play, we act them out with sound and fury, and yet unconsciously. Perhaps if we looked at ourselves as furniture in a room, we might discern a self nature that is something other than what we have projected on ourselves.
There is something deeper in us. An essence, undefinable, ineffable, yet knowing. We don't become aware of this essence, playing our prescribed roles. We become awareness by stepping aside, by letting go, by questioning our ideas and presumptions. Step back and observe oneself without ideas, and see what arises.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
There is a seeming I
There is a seeming I here. There are interests, avoidances, but mostly peace, contentment - not bliss, not joy, just this.
The nondual is. The fact that there still an apparent person here is not a problem. This appearance is operating, much as it always did, except the search is finished.
There is no need here to get rid of the person. No sense that the person should go away, become non existent. Why, because the truth is known that appearances are, but I am not that. I am all appearances. The personality is like an old shoe. it's here, it's comfortable. Who says I need to get rid of it?
Who is going to make the effort to get rid of this appearance? Since the appearance is part of the play, why not enjoy the show?
There is an ease in allowing the appearance to be as it is. There is awareness that catches what is rises as resistance, irritation, judgment. When awareness senses these, it brings them into focus. The simple recognition releases the resistance as not needed. All is well.
There does not need to be any purpose to this. Who is here to judge, to determine what that purpose is? Just observing, holding back judgment is enough. Just see how much one can accept and love. That is enough.
The nondual is. The fact that there still an apparent person here is not a problem. This appearance is operating, much as it always did, except the search is finished.
There is no need here to get rid of the person. No sense that the person should go away, become non existent. Why, because the truth is known that appearances are, but I am not that. I am all appearances. The personality is like an old shoe. it's here, it's comfortable. Who says I need to get rid of it?
Who is going to make the effort to get rid of this appearance? Since the appearance is part of the play, why not enjoy the show?
There is an ease in allowing the appearance to be as it is. There is awareness that catches what is rises as resistance, irritation, judgment. When awareness senses these, it brings them into focus. The simple recognition releases the resistance as not needed. All is well.
There does not need to be any purpose to this. Who is here to judge, to determine what that purpose is? Just observing, holding back judgment is enough. Just see how much one can accept and love. That is enough.
Alphabet Soup
Pour a cup of Alphabet Soup and you can play with the letters, making many different words. The letters make words for animals, and things, and yet they remain soup. The liquid and the letters are one soup. We are like that soup, appearing as separate pieces, but still soup.
That which looks out from this body/mind sees only itself. That which sees from every other body/mind sees only itself. Different points of view only. We are like raindrops from the same storm, each with our story to tell of how we fell. Only to find that we are all washed back into the sea.
Oh, the stories we tell! Oh, the experiences we have! We should all wink when we tell them. Somehow, in our hearts, we know that all our stories are about the One. The One we are. Why else would we listen?
Listen to your own story lightly. Take a step back as you tell it. Be sure to laugh.
That which looks out from this body/mind sees only itself. That which sees from every other body/mind sees only itself. Different points of view only. We are like raindrops from the same storm, each with our story to tell of how we fell. Only to find that we are all washed back into the sea.
Oh, the stories we tell! Oh, the experiences we have! We should all wink when we tell them. Somehow, in our hearts, we know that all our stories are about the One. The One we are. Why else would we listen?
Listen to your own story lightly. Take a step back as you tell it. Be sure to laugh.
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Who Am I?
When there is recall, there are memories of being a child, and there are memories of joys and fears. When there is recall there are memories of teenage and college years. But, whose memories are they? They are certainly not mine!
Whoever I am now, which is more like no one, nowhere, I am not that child, not that college kid, not any of those memories. The memories are there, this body/mind can recall them, but there is no one here to own them.
Long ago I wrote an autobiography. It seemed really important at the time. The problem is that I waited too long to publish it. Now, the person that wrote it is no longer here. Now there is no motive to publish it. Who is it important to now? No one! Whoever wrote it has long since died.
The body/mind remains. It is here at this computer typing these words. And though memories attest to experience, they don't attest to what remains: nothing definable as the person who experienced them.
From here, this body/mind has enough distance from itself to ask, who is here now typing this? Rather than answer directly, a little trip into the future will certainly reveal that whoever thinks they are writing this now, will not be here in the future. So, is there really anyone writing this?
Bodies are born and mindfields form around them. If they are unchallenged, they stabilize and a person is born. But the person that is born is just thoughts, opinions, ideas, nothing one can put in a box and keep.
Suffering is good at dispelling long held cherished beliefs. Suffering breaks up cherished positions, thoughts and ideas. The suffering is equal to the strength of the chains of thought. So much suffering to keep from seeing, to keep from changing.
There is a cool wind blowing where the web of thoughts used to be. With no web, no chains, what can stick? Where am I? Not here, not there, perhaps only everywhere.
Whoever I am now, which is more like no one, nowhere, I am not that child, not that college kid, not any of those memories. The memories are there, this body/mind can recall them, but there is no one here to own them.
Long ago I wrote an autobiography. It seemed really important at the time. The problem is that I waited too long to publish it. Now, the person that wrote it is no longer here. Now there is no motive to publish it. Who is it important to now? No one! Whoever wrote it has long since died.
The body/mind remains. It is here at this computer typing these words. And though memories attest to experience, they don't attest to what remains: nothing definable as the person who experienced them.
From here, this body/mind has enough distance from itself to ask, who is here now typing this? Rather than answer directly, a little trip into the future will certainly reveal that whoever thinks they are writing this now, will not be here in the future. So, is there really anyone writing this?
Bodies are born and mindfields form around them. If they are unchallenged, they stabilize and a person is born. But the person that is born is just thoughts, opinions, ideas, nothing one can put in a box and keep.
Suffering is good at dispelling long held cherished beliefs. Suffering breaks up cherished positions, thoughts and ideas. The suffering is equal to the strength of the chains of thought. So much suffering to keep from seeing, to keep from changing.
There is a cool wind blowing where the web of thoughts used to be. With no web, no chains, what can stick? Where am I? Not here, not there, perhaps only everywhere.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Awareness has no identity
Does the watcher have a name? When there is awareness of the watcher, considering what is going on in the body/mind, does the watcher have a need for identity? Does one ever consider, who, or better yet, what the watcher is?
After realization, there is a continued unraveling of the ego self. It is not personal, it has no personal agenda. It is just like water flowing from a damn when the drain is opened - a natural process. Something watches the unraveling. When there is awareness of the watcher, who is watching the watcher?
The reports of the body/mind continuing to do what it has always done, eating, sleeping, working, goes on, but it goes on in without the previous drive, goals, anxiety. It's like watching a robot perform.
Certainly life is simpler as the competitive drive has left. Strangely though, with the egos strategies, hurts, and specialness gone, things are seen more clearly, and work gets done more efficiently. There are fewer needs and what is essential is naturally seen.
Whatever is seen or arrives in awareness is not what one is. Who is seeing the unraveling? Who notices the ego dropping? Who is aware of the changing, the loss of desire, the loss of meaning? When all the who's and what's are seen, who sees them?
In the end all that can said is that Awareness is. It is constant, unchanging, available, and finally knows that it alone is sovereign. It has no identity. It is not separate from you or me. You are that.
After realization, there is a continued unraveling of the ego self. It is not personal, it has no personal agenda. It is just like water flowing from a damn when the drain is opened - a natural process. Something watches the unraveling. When there is awareness of the watcher, who is watching the watcher?
The reports of the body/mind continuing to do what it has always done, eating, sleeping, working, goes on, but it goes on in without the previous drive, goals, anxiety. It's like watching a robot perform.
Certainly life is simpler as the competitive drive has left. Strangely though, with the egos strategies, hurts, and specialness gone, things are seen more clearly, and work gets done more efficiently. There are fewer needs and what is essential is naturally seen.
Whatever is seen or arrives in awareness is not what one is. Who is seeing the unraveling? Who notices the ego dropping? Who is aware of the changing, the loss of desire, the loss of meaning? When all the who's and what's are seen, who sees them?
In the end all that can said is that Awareness is. It is constant, unchanging, available, and finally knows that it alone is sovereign. It has no identity. It is not separate from you or me. You are that.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Caesar's Coin
A coin has two sides. We call the sides different names. In the U.S. we call them "heads or tails". Looking at one side or the other is a very distinct view, but the coin is still one. That one coin, when tossed, makes the difference between being the first or second to throw the ball. It is still one coin.
When Jesus was asked about paying taxes and one's duty to God, he gave a profound and practical reply, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." A metaphor for "Be in the world, but not of it."
Is there being in the world "as it is," but not being caught in it? Is spirituality separate from the world? Are there really separate sides of a coin? Are we in school? Is there free will? Is there really no "you" and "me?"
Honestly, I really don't know. I can't seem to draw the line in my own mind and explain it to myself. I would like to be able to, but currently cannot. What I do feel/know/experience, is that ultimately we are all one. The world I am in, and you are in, is one field, one energy, manifesting in multiple emanations, endlessly creative.
Ultimately, humans, like everything else, are emanations, created beings, and this would imply no free will. I long ago gave up the idea that I or anyone else had free will. There is a lot of freedom in this. It is great for putting the ego in its place, or dropping it altogether.
The experience of "no self" which can be progressive, or sudden, is rather devastating to being in the world, but is great at making sure one is not "of it."
As one who knows that ultimately, "I am that, and you are that," there still appears a me, and a you. And now we are back to the metaphor of the coin. Two sides, one coin. I really like this metaphor as it makes simple, a complex area of spiritual inquiry, the conundrum: duality/non duality.
Currently there is a raging debate about this. Both sides are on the same playing field, but disagree on how to play. Perhaps we need to remember that we are playing a game. As Shakespeare once said, "All the world's a stage, and we are but players upon it." Or as Faulkner wrote, "Sound and furry signifying nothing.
When teacher's teach, whether they claim personhood or not, whether they claim to be enlightened or not, they do have individual styles. We need to be careful and not argue teaching styles over essence. Doesn't it really come down to reflecting on what resonates? I really like this term because it is reflects congruence, while remaining open.
My whole spiritual search has been based on resonance. At first, it was primarily what I liked intellectually, but as I progressed (that nasty, bad term, to some) I found that I was reading with my heart. I literally felt the resonance in my heart.
Having been a seeker for many years, I've had many opportunities to see who I resonated with, and who I did not. Teachers resonate that appear to be stressing or pointing in very different ways. I can only conclude that the pointing is different, not that which is being pointed to.
One side claims that no person exists, or ever existed - all is illusion. Therefore, there is no enlightened person, no such thing as enlightenment, and never has been. The other side agrees that ultimately, this is so, but acknowledges that though ultimately true, the body/mind needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.
I resonate with teachers who claim no person exists, and with teachers who claim to be enlightened. Is there an absolute divide between non duality and duality? Both are aspects of the One.
The teacher that claims no enlightenment, no person, and yet teaches, is somehow acknowledging duality. To dismiss the embodiment, the seeker, is like the elephant in the living room that is not acknowledged. The teacher may claim to be enlightened or not. Does that change the fact that there is resonance?
One teacher claims to be enlightened, acknowledges it, and then teaches that there is no student, no teacher, and no free will. Gets confusing, doesn't it?
Teachers emphasize different sides of the same coin. They are all pointing, and pointing is not the truth. The one coin contains all sides. Acknowledging both the ultimate Oneness, and embodiment, seems balanced to me.
I trust my heart and only listen to and ponder those teachers who resonate with my heart. I resonate with teachers who fall on both sides of the coin. Neither side has the right pointer, all are pointing only.
As a seeker, I never cared whether a teacher claimed there is no one to be enlightened or not. I never cared if the teacher said there was no teacher, no student, no me. I only cared if there was resonance. I only cared if there was a response in my heart. I didn't care if I understood. I only cared if my heart relaxed and went, "Ahhhh."
When Jesus was asked about paying taxes and one's duty to God, he gave a profound and practical reply, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." A metaphor for "Be in the world, but not of it."
Is there being in the world "as it is," but not being caught in it? Is spirituality separate from the world? Are there really separate sides of a coin? Are we in school? Is there free will? Is there really no "you" and "me?"
Honestly, I really don't know. I can't seem to draw the line in my own mind and explain it to myself. I would like to be able to, but currently cannot. What I do feel/know/experience, is that ultimately we are all one. The world I am in, and you are in, is one field, one energy, manifesting in multiple emanations, endlessly creative.
Ultimately, humans, like everything else, are emanations, created beings, and this would imply no free will. I long ago gave up the idea that I or anyone else had free will. There is a lot of freedom in this. It is great for putting the ego in its place, or dropping it altogether.
The experience of "no self" which can be progressive, or sudden, is rather devastating to being in the world, but is great at making sure one is not "of it."
As one who knows that ultimately, "I am that, and you are that," there still appears a me, and a you. And now we are back to the metaphor of the coin. Two sides, one coin. I really like this metaphor as it makes simple, a complex area of spiritual inquiry, the conundrum: duality/non duality.
Currently there is a raging debate about this. Both sides are on the same playing field, but disagree on how to play. Perhaps we need to remember that we are playing a game. As Shakespeare once said, "All the world's a stage, and we are but players upon it." Or as Faulkner wrote, "Sound and furry signifying nothing.
When teacher's teach, whether they claim personhood or not, whether they claim to be enlightened or not, they do have individual styles. We need to be careful and not argue teaching styles over essence. Doesn't it really come down to reflecting on what resonates? I really like this term because it is reflects congruence, while remaining open.
My whole spiritual search has been based on resonance. At first, it was primarily what I liked intellectually, but as I progressed (that nasty, bad term, to some) I found that I was reading with my heart. I literally felt the resonance in my heart.
Having been a seeker for many years, I've had many opportunities to see who I resonated with, and who I did not. Teachers resonate that appear to be stressing or pointing in very different ways. I can only conclude that the pointing is different, not that which is being pointed to.
One side claims that no person exists, or ever existed - all is illusion. Therefore, there is no enlightened person, no such thing as enlightenment, and never has been. The other side agrees that ultimately, this is so, but acknowledges that though ultimately true, the body/mind needs to be acknowledged and dealt with.
I resonate with teachers who claim no person exists, and with teachers who claim to be enlightened. Is there an absolute divide between non duality and duality? Both are aspects of the One.
The teacher that claims no enlightenment, no person, and yet teaches, is somehow acknowledging duality. To dismiss the embodiment, the seeker, is like the elephant in the living room that is not acknowledged. The teacher may claim to be enlightened or not. Does that change the fact that there is resonance?
One teacher claims to be enlightened, acknowledges it, and then teaches that there is no student, no teacher, and no free will. Gets confusing, doesn't it?
Teachers emphasize different sides of the same coin. They are all pointing, and pointing is not the truth. The one coin contains all sides. Acknowledging both the ultimate Oneness, and embodiment, seems balanced to me.
I trust my heart and only listen to and ponder those teachers who resonate with my heart. I resonate with teachers who fall on both sides of the coin. Neither side has the right pointer, all are pointing only.
As a seeker, I never cared whether a teacher claimed there is no one to be enlightened or not. I never cared if the teacher said there was no teacher, no student, no me. I only cared if there was resonance. I only cared if there was a response in my heart. I didn't care if I understood. I only cared if my heart relaxed and went, "Ahhhh."
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Thinking and Duality
It is only natural that we favor thought. It is that which allows us to function in duality. Thought defines and separates, and separation is necessary to navigate and manipulate our environment.
This separation, this duality, allows us to know what is good to eat, and that which is not. It allows us to avoid the tiger and embrace our lover. It is necessary for life in the body. The mind is simply an extension of the body that allows it to survive.
However, when we assume that we are the body/mind, we also remain in bondage, for duality is bondage. There is nothing wrong with duality, it is the manifestation of that which is beyond duality.
For the majority, getting the most from this appearance in duality is satisfactory enough. Most do not question their own appearance. There is simply the acceptance of it, like accepting a FedEx package. Just like the acceptance of a package from FedEx, we accept delivery of the body/mind.
This acceptance of the gift of body/mind is perfectly natural, and in perfect order. Why we accept this delivery without question is irrelevant. It's just the way it is. And why some few, very few, question the delivery, is also irrelevant. It just happens.
If you are reading this blog, you are among the few who have begun to question, or have questioned. You are seeking deeper understanding, or having understood, simply enjoy the various expressions of understanding.
All why questions ultimately come up empty handed. The term scientific reductionism expresses itself in more and more questions still pointing to the ultimate emptiness - the spaceless space, the stateless state, the awe of unknowing.
It can be seen that all thought is an effort to define and separate, and all thought is geared to providing security. When thought is seen to be ultimately fruitless for anything beyond living in duality, some look for a deeper security.
Deeper security is beyond the mind, beyond thought. In fact, the greater security is in the unknown. Acceptance of the unknown, trusting the unknown, is the ultimate security.
Ultimate security knows the body/mind is not who One is. Ultimate security knows that the concepts of mind do not contain the answer. True security is the gut knowing that One is That which is the creator of duality, unchanged by any appearance, or anything that happens to any appearance.
Enjoy duality. It is an expression of what you are. But be not deceived into thinking that you are limited by the body/mind you have been gifted. See that you are the giver, and the receiver, the One beyond.
This separation, this duality, allows us to know what is good to eat, and that which is not. It allows us to avoid the tiger and embrace our lover. It is necessary for life in the body. The mind is simply an extension of the body that allows it to survive.
However, when we assume that we are the body/mind, we also remain in bondage, for duality is bondage. There is nothing wrong with duality, it is the manifestation of that which is beyond duality.
For the majority, getting the most from this appearance in duality is satisfactory enough. Most do not question their own appearance. There is simply the acceptance of it, like accepting a FedEx package. Just like the acceptance of a package from FedEx, we accept delivery of the body/mind.
This acceptance of the gift of body/mind is perfectly natural, and in perfect order. Why we accept this delivery without question is irrelevant. It's just the way it is. And why some few, very few, question the delivery, is also irrelevant. It just happens.
If you are reading this blog, you are among the few who have begun to question, or have questioned. You are seeking deeper understanding, or having understood, simply enjoy the various expressions of understanding.
All why questions ultimately come up empty handed. The term scientific reductionism expresses itself in more and more questions still pointing to the ultimate emptiness - the spaceless space, the stateless state, the awe of unknowing.
It can be seen that all thought is an effort to define and separate, and all thought is geared to providing security. When thought is seen to be ultimately fruitless for anything beyond living in duality, some look for a deeper security.
Deeper security is beyond the mind, beyond thought. In fact, the greater security is in the unknown. Acceptance of the unknown, trusting the unknown, is the ultimate security.
Ultimate security knows the body/mind is not who One is. Ultimate security knows that the concepts of mind do not contain the answer. True security is the gut knowing that One is That which is the creator of duality, unchanged by any appearance, or anything that happens to any appearance.
Enjoy duality. It is an expression of what you are. But be not deceived into thinking that you are limited by the body/mind you have been gifted. See that you are the giver, and the receiver, the One beyond.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Understanding
Understanding is all. But this is not an intellectual understanding. The intellect doesn't go deep enough. The understanding has to be experienced at gut level. It's a primal experience.
If you've every had an experience of ecstasy, a mystical unitive experience, you know the authority with which it comes. That's the kind of understanding that is spoken of here. It's beyond the intellect, prior to intellect, not in it.
But understanding isn't ecstatic, day in and day out. It's just understanding. Bernadette Roberts reports how when one has profound ecstatic experiences, the resulting changes become one's normal day to day experience. They loose their feeling of uniqueness, of differentness. In fact, a change, such as peace, may become so normal that only other people notice it.
Understanding is profound and does affect one's life, but the change is incorporated and is not felt as something special.
It does no good to try and not be the doer. It does no good to try and stop thinking. These are results, not a prescription. When there is understanding, then thinking quiets down. It results from understanding, not trying to stop thinking. It does no good to try and stop being the doer of actions. The very trying itself, is the doer.
However, there is a place for trying, for striving, because as long as there is a seeker, there will be effort. Effort will be there as long as there is a perceived, sensed, separate "I." For just as long as you feel choice, free will, and know yourself as a separate person, you will not escape effort. Until that "I' drops, or slides into the background as a phantom, effort remains.
What is being pointed to, is that many of the spiritual methods are teaching results, which are effects, which are not the path.
Since the seeker can't stop trying, the seeker at least deserves to know what might have the possibility of being the most productive towards understanding.
Understanding is more likely to come from Awareness, which is prior to consciousness. Consciousness consists of the objects, thoughts, perceptions, one is aware of. So anything one thinks, judges, conceives of, appears in Awareness. So, try and step behind consciousness of this and that, to the field in which they appear, Awareness.
Contemplation is a great and natural process that can be harnessed. Hawkins states that any valid spiritual truth can be used as a tool. For example, a single sharp knife can cut a watermelon, shape a Buddha, cut your bread and spread your butter.
Your effort will be rewarded by your intent and your earnestness. This one was never a meditator. This one was a contemplative. The advantage of contemplation is that it can be done all day, while at work or at play. It doesn't require a quiet place, a certain posture, a particular practice.
We all contemplate, but we do it unconsciously. We contemplate the neighbor's wife, the boss's poor hygiene, or how well we're doing in our political positioning within our company. Just change what you contemplate! As James Allen said, "Think on These Things," spiritual truths. Pick one and stay conscious of it.
You can't think about two things at once, so if you choose to contemplate on the higher things, rather than lower things, you won't have to fight the lower, they just won't have room.
If you can't understand how all is One, contemplate that. If you can't understand that "The observer is the observed," contemplate that. If you can't "Love your neighbor as yourself," contemplate that.
Stay aware of every position you take. Stay aware of every feeling of judgment you have. Stay aware of every time you feel defensive. Ask yourself, "Who am I defending?"
This is simple, and with earnestness of intent, will produce results. Then you can ponder, "Where did my thinking go," Where did my stress go?" Then you will be in understanding.
If you've every had an experience of ecstasy, a mystical unitive experience, you know the authority with which it comes. That's the kind of understanding that is spoken of here. It's beyond the intellect, prior to intellect, not in it.
But understanding isn't ecstatic, day in and day out. It's just understanding. Bernadette Roberts reports how when one has profound ecstatic experiences, the resulting changes become one's normal day to day experience. They loose their feeling of uniqueness, of differentness. In fact, a change, such as peace, may become so normal that only other people notice it.
Understanding is profound and does affect one's life, but the change is incorporated and is not felt as something special.
It does no good to try and not be the doer. It does no good to try and stop thinking. These are results, not a prescription. When there is understanding, then thinking quiets down. It results from understanding, not trying to stop thinking. It does no good to try and stop being the doer of actions. The very trying itself, is the doer.
However, there is a place for trying, for striving, because as long as there is a seeker, there will be effort. Effort will be there as long as there is a perceived, sensed, separate "I." For just as long as you feel choice, free will, and know yourself as a separate person, you will not escape effort. Until that "I' drops, or slides into the background as a phantom, effort remains.
What is being pointed to, is that many of the spiritual methods are teaching results, which are effects, which are not the path.
Since the seeker can't stop trying, the seeker at least deserves to know what might have the possibility of being the most productive towards understanding.
Understanding is more likely to come from Awareness, which is prior to consciousness. Consciousness consists of the objects, thoughts, perceptions, one is aware of. So anything one thinks, judges, conceives of, appears in Awareness. So, try and step behind consciousness of this and that, to the field in which they appear, Awareness.
Contemplation is a great and natural process that can be harnessed. Hawkins states that any valid spiritual truth can be used as a tool. For example, a single sharp knife can cut a watermelon, shape a Buddha, cut your bread and spread your butter.
Your effort will be rewarded by your intent and your earnestness. This one was never a meditator. This one was a contemplative. The advantage of contemplation is that it can be done all day, while at work or at play. It doesn't require a quiet place, a certain posture, a particular practice.
We all contemplate, but we do it unconsciously. We contemplate the neighbor's wife, the boss's poor hygiene, or how well we're doing in our political positioning within our company. Just change what you contemplate! As James Allen said, "Think on These Things," spiritual truths. Pick one and stay conscious of it.
You can't think about two things at once, so if you choose to contemplate on the higher things, rather than lower things, you won't have to fight the lower, they just won't have room.
If you can't understand how all is One, contemplate that. If you can't understand that "The observer is the observed," contemplate that. If you can't "Love your neighbor as yourself," contemplate that.
Stay aware of every position you take. Stay aware of every feeling of judgment you have. Stay aware of every time you feel defensive. Ask yourself, "Who am I defending?"
This is simple, and with earnestness of intent, will produce results. Then you can ponder, "Where did my thinking go," Where did my stress go?" Then you will be in understanding.
Monday, June 2, 2008
The Paradox of Freedom
Awareness has no preference. It is the screen on which all is projected. You are Awareness, and your body is an appearance in Awareness. On what authority can the body/mind reject its appearance? If you are Awareness, and the mind is an appearance in Awareness, then who are you too reject it?
Awareness is absolute freedom. Absolute freedom rejects nothing. Without judgment, anything is allowed to appear in it. The body/mind you take yourself to be is a manifestation of creation, appearing in Awareness, as it is.
So, the admonition to "be what you are," comes from the understanding that you are Awareness, and what it is that you are appearing as, is O.K. Be what you are because you, as a focal point in Awareness, have no control over the appearance.
If you have no control over who you are, why not let go and really be it? You have nothing to loose because you are already free of the appearance, can't control the appearance, and what's gonna happen will happen.
The fact that we do our best to make things easy, or better, is already the way things are. So, do that. Make things better. Just remember you have nothing to do with that desire. Act as responsible as you like, or not. There will be consequences. But good or bad, you're not really the one in charge.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose." You are nothing already. So you need not fret. You are already free. Know that you are free, then act "as if" you are responsible.
Any appearance in Awareness is a focal point, and that point is conscious as "I am." But the focal point as consciousness tends to take ownership of the consciousness, not realizing its Source. That's where all the trouble begins. Refuse ownership, refuse free will, and drop the baggage.
The trip will continue without you. It will be amazing! Effortless doing, ease of mind. You will do ten times more with less effort and little or no thought. This is the result of thinking being used only for doing, not in service of the ego.
It is indeed paradoxical that realizing you have no personal freedom grants you the greatest freedom. But that's the way it is, and you have no control over that.
Maury Lee 6/2/3008
Awareness is absolute freedom. Absolute freedom rejects nothing. Without judgment, anything is allowed to appear in it. The body/mind you take yourself to be is a manifestation of creation, appearing in Awareness, as it is.
So, the admonition to "be what you are," comes from the understanding that you are Awareness, and what it is that you are appearing as, is O.K. Be what you are because you, as a focal point in Awareness, have no control over the appearance.
If you have no control over who you are, why not let go and really be it? You have nothing to loose because you are already free of the appearance, can't control the appearance, and what's gonna happen will happen.
The fact that we do our best to make things easy, or better, is already the way things are. So, do that. Make things better. Just remember you have nothing to do with that desire. Act as responsible as you like, or not. There will be consequences. But good or bad, you're not really the one in charge.
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose." You are nothing already. So you need not fret. You are already free. Know that you are free, then act "as if" you are responsible.
Any appearance in Awareness is a focal point, and that point is conscious as "I am." But the focal point as consciousness tends to take ownership of the consciousness, not realizing its Source. That's where all the trouble begins. Refuse ownership, refuse free will, and drop the baggage.
The trip will continue without you. It will be amazing! Effortless doing, ease of mind. You will do ten times more with less effort and little or no thought. This is the result of thinking being used only for doing, not in service of the ego.
It is indeed paradoxical that realizing you have no personal freedom grants you the greatest freedom. But that's the way it is, and you have no control over that.
Maury Lee 6/2/3008