It is interesting how delusion and clarity sometimes look similar to each other, at least on the surface.

For instance, if I don’t seem too rattled by a certain experience, it can be interpreted as stoic or coming from clarity.

But there is of course a big difference under the surface.

In the first case, I come from a belief, and resist experience and the truth in the reversals of the initial belief. I tell myself I have to be strong, or not show emotions, so I resist whatever I am experiencing, and am not receptive to the truths in the reversals of that particular story.

In the second case, I fully allow experience and the truths in the reversals of whatever stories apply to the situation. I am not at war with what is, but come from clarity.

So for instance, say we have spent a great deal of money and time on a construction project (which, by coincidence, we have), it turns out we did it wrong based on paid advice from a professional, and that we won’t get the money back and have to undo it all ourselves.

I can be stoic, not showing any emotions around it. No use crying over spilled milk. I stuff it and go on.

Or I can fully allow and be with whatever experience is here (anger, frustration), and also investigate whatever beliefs come up around it.

Being stoic, I identify with a particular point of view and identity, split parts of who I am off, and also don’t notice very easily what I am. (That which all experience happens within, to and as.)

In clarity, there is a fuller embrace of who I am, and in the release of identification out of content of experience, there is also an invitation to notice what I am.