It is interesting to notice some of the many ways different practices support each other. Here are a small taste, as a skeleton list. As usual, these are all questions, not to be taken very seriously.

(more…)

Is a story just a story?

Yes, it is, because it is only a story. It is an overlay of thought making the world appear a certain way.

There are the basic stories of an I with an Other, extent, continuity and so on, overlaid on what happens in the sense fields. These are usually only noticed if we look a little closer, for instance through exploring the sense fields.

And there are the familiar discursive stories using language and words, the ways we talk with ourselves and others.

And no, it isn’t just a story.

Each story has some truth to it. But so do each of its reversals, and all of them have value only as a practical tool guiding our human self in the world. Or, sometimes, in guiding it in noticing what is really is. In that sense, stories has a practical value.

And they do also have another, very important, function. They create a sense of drama.

When identified with, they make the world of appearances seem real and substantial. They make the stories of a separate I adventuring in the world seem - temporarily - real and true.

They create lila. The drama of an I with an Other in its struggle to survive and enhance its life, and, sometimes, in its struggle to awaken.

A few things about karma, aka cause and effect…

• It is instant, happening here now. Said one way, I relate to all content of experience in a similar way, including this human self and the wider world. If I get caught up in reactiveness, a closed heart, a fixed view, then that is how I relate to my human self, those around me, the rest of the world, life, the universe, God and so on. And the same if I relate from receptivity and an open heart. The way I act towards others is a sign of how I habitually relate to myself. The karma is instant, in that sense.
• Whenever there is an identification with a pattern, it is reinforced. The groove is deepened. A pattern is taken as I, fueled, lived from, and becomes more of a habit.
• Patterns of an open heart and receptivity leads to happiness and a release from suffering. And patterns of reactivity, a closed heart and fixed view leads to suffering. This happens in many different ways. For instance, an open heart and receptive view tends to give a sense of connection, intimacy, recognition, empathy, joy in other’s happiness. And it also gives less sense of a need to protect any particular story or identity. Both tends to release suffering and open for a sense of quiet joy. It also makes it easier to release identification out of content in general, and notice what we are, which is a more complete release of suffering.
• Karma shows up in my relationship with the wider world. How I treat the wider world determines, to some extent, how I am treated back. In my immediate relationships, how I treat others is how they tend to treat me. (The post card effect.) And as a part of larger social and ecological systems, the way I influence the health of these impacts me and those within my circle of care, including generations of offspring.
• The story of karma is a teaching and practice tool. It is a guide for noticing the effects of our actions in the world. Take responsibility for our actions. Treat others the way we would like to be treated in their situation. (Golden rule.) And act from enlightened self-interest.
• And if we look a little closer, we may find that everything has infinite causes and infinite effects. I may not find any individual or local “doer” here. Only infinite effects stretching back to beginning of time and out through the extent of space.

Trigger for this post: Reading the section on karma in “Buddhism for Dummies” which I thought left a few things out.

I am familiarizing myself with a teacher I just discovered, whom seem very clear and direct. But there are also parts that brings me to inquiry for myself, such as this one about insight practice:

Ultimate insights cause permanent changes in the relationship to reality and eliminate fundamental levels of suffering forever.

Forever is a very long time.

It is also just a story. A projection of what is here now into an imagined future.

A projection of the awakeness here now, which is already awake whether it is confused or clear. And a projection of the content of a story of “forever”, as if it was real, substantial, existing - somehow, magically - somewhere in an imagined future.

All we know is what is here now. Anything else is just a story of a future.

(more…)

Interesting quote posted at Indistinct Union:

John Polkinghorne, a physicist and a priest, has put it this way: “God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves.” That gets to two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God’s presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ’s kingdom.

Is it only me that sees this as more creepy than attractive? If this is all there is to it, I am tempted to say count me out.

(It is also another example of someone entertaining themselves with their thinking, creating imaginations that gives some temporary comfort. Nothing wrong in that, but it is good to be honest about it.)

But as usual, we can also find it here now.

This timeless now that everything happens within is Christ’s Kingdom. And when I notice that, its content - this human self and its surroundings, or Kosmos if we want to be grand - is noticed as already and always fresh, new, stainless, pure.

So in that case, count me in.

(more…)

I know there are lots of guidelines and maps about stability practice out there, based on the cumulative experience of thousands (millions?) of practitioners, and I am neither very familiar with it or very experienced on my own. As with everything else here, this is just a snapshot of what is alive for me right now, and each statement if followed by a question mark even if it doesn’t show up on the screen.

It seems that many practices are, most of the time, approximate. It is approximate shikantaza, approximate allowing experience, and also approximate stability practice, an approximately stable attention on something.

Here are some of the things I notice which makes my stability practice only approximate. In this case, using the sensation of the breath at the nostrils as the object of attention, with or without counting.

• If I count my breaths, I notice that attention is often split between the sensations of the breath at the nostrils, and the number thoguht. Attention also tends to shift between the two, with one in the foreground, then the other.
• If I have my eyes partly open, even with a soft gaze, I notice attention being split between the sensations of the breath at the nostrils, and the focus of the visual field. (It may be subtle, but still a noticeable split.) This happens whether I count, in which case attention is split four ways (imagined bulls eye as guide for attention, thought of a number and through of sequence of numbers, focal point of visual field, and sensations at the nostrils), or not.
• When I bring attention to the sensations of the breath at the nostrils, I use a visual thought - almost an imagined bulls eye - as a guide for attention. So attention is split between these two as well, with one in the foreground then the other. Even without counting, and with eyes closed, attention is split between these two.
• Sensations themselves flicker inn and out of existence. When they flicker out of existence, the imagined bulls eye remains so attention shifts there. When they flicker into existence, attention shifts back to the sensation. (This rapid flickering happens during inhalation and exhalation, and the sensations also fade in and out of existence during the in/outbreath and the pause in between.)
• Any belief tends to catch attention, in obvious or more subtle ways, either by attention going on the inside of a thought and following it, or by just a flicker of interest when the thought arises. (Belief here means identification with a story, any story.)
• These flickers of interest also happens with non-discursive thoughts, such as image thoughts overlaid on the sense fields. (Imagining what the sounds are, where the sensation is located in the body, and so on.)

So this is one way stability practice, in itself, invites in insights.

Through stability practice, we gain insight into some of the dynamics around a stable, or in this case not so stable, attention.

We may notice the sense of clarity that often comes as a side effect of a more stable attention.

We may notice the sense of energy that comes with it, and other side effects such as a sense of luminosity (even visually) and so on.

We discover how it is much easier to observe and notice what is going on when we can place attention more stably on something alive here now. A more stable attention helps insight directly.

We may notice how thoughts, as anything else, lives its own life, coming and going on their own schedule.

We may notice the difference between attention seeing a thought as a thought, and getting absorbed on the inside of a story. In the first case, allowing it to come and go as a simple thought. In the second case, fueling and elaborating it into a more complex story, and often getting lost in it.

We may notice how attention is more easily drawn to stories we identify with. Stories that seem true, real, important. Stories that define who we, temporarily, take ourselves to be.

We may notice how the activities of thoughts naturally quiet down when attention rests stably on the breath, or something else.

We may notice how the effects of the different layers of thoughts fall away when identification is released out of them. When identification goes out of discursive thought, drama falls away and there is a sense of quiet presence. When identification is released out of more basic layers of thought, such as those creating a sense of extent and continuity, this falls away, and whatever happens in the different sense fields happens without being mapped onto space or time. When identification goes out of a sense of I with an Other, this field of awakeness and its content is revealed as inherently free of an I with an Other, inside and outside, center and periphery.

(The discursive layer is needed for daily functioning, but only to a limited extent, and when identification goes out of it, drama goes out as well. The layer creating a sense of extent and continuity is obviously needed for daily functioning, but it can be interesting and helpful to explore during sitting practice. And the final layer, of a sense of a separate I, is not needed for the functioning of our human self.)

We notice the ephemeral nature of sensations, rapidly flickering in and out of existence, and the ephemeral nature of any sense field.

We may notice sensations, and any sense field, as awakeness itself.

We may notice how the content of each sense field comes and goes, but something does not come and go. What is it that does not come and go? Am I the content of the fields, or that which does not come and go? Are they really separate?

And this is just scratching the surface. Something as simple as stability practice is fertile ground for exploration, going right back to the core of what we really are.

Unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of God.
[Mark 10:15]

Some of the ways I find myself more childlike…

• Exploring the sense fields, and the simplicity of noticing what arises in each, how thoughts combine with the others to create gestalts, and how these gestalts are as ephemeral and insubstantial as thoughts themselves when this is seen, and appear very substantial and real when this is not seen.
• Learning to trust what is really here, what I notice and discover through simple practices such as the headless experiments.
• The simplicity of finding myself as awareness, and all that arises as awareness.
• Receptivity of the three centers - view, heart and belly.
• Finding the genuine truths in accusations, joining in with the other.
• Saying yes or no from clarity.
• Not having to defend the truth in any story, nor defend against the truth in any story.
• Making a fool of oneself, through acting from what is alive here now. (As i do with this blog.)
• See thoughts as thoughts.
• See thoughts as tools for this human self to orient and function in the world, and having no value beyond that.
• Not knowing. See thoughts as tools only.
• Willing to be wrong. Exited to be wrong, to move out of familiar views and identities.

He shouldn’t use the word “ego”. (Joel, in his new book and his teachings in general.)

(more…)

The mystery of existence, and not…

What we are is not really a mystery. It is something we can notice for ourselves, here and now. We are this awakeness that everything happens within, to and as. Independent of the particulars of its content, which is no other than awakeness itself.

And some of the conventional things in the world is not that much of a mystery. We understand it well enough for practical purposes. We wake up, eat, go about our days, and generally function pretty well with our conventional understanding of life.

But everything else is pretty much a mystery.

Why is it that anything exists at all, including awakeness? Why is there something rather than nothing? Is there anything more astounding and amazing?

And within the world of form, everything is really a mystery. Our experience and understanding is always limited. There is always more to explore, new perspectives to apply, new maps to help organize the world and parts of the world. There is no end to what we can discover and explore within the world of form. Always new landscapes opening up. Always new aspects of landscapes we thought we were relatively familiar with.

There are different literal and metaphorical interpretations of this perplexing statement by Jesus:

If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Here is one way of looking at it that makes sense to me:

When we believe in stories, we are identified with them and try to defend and protect them. If someone says something that goes against these, we automatically defend them and create drama around it. We act from a fixed view, a closed heart, reactive emotions.

Yet, when there is a release of identification with these stories, when there is only clarity, there is no need to defend and protect them. We know they have only limited and practical value, we are familiar with the truths in their turnarounds. Instead of defending against what someone says, we can join with it. We see the truth in it.

(more…)

Rationalization is one of those terms easily has a slightly suspicious, undesirable, even sinister tone to it. Something you certainly don’t want anything to do with yourself, and would protest to or be ashamed of being in the grips of.

But if we look closer, we see that it is (a) completely innocent, and (b) something that is an integral part of our daily life.

(more…)

Some common and less common stories about The Work, and how they are not true, true, and true about me.

The Work… is pollyannish, superficial, cognitive therapy, rationalization, affirmations, pacifying, makes you into a doormat, and is heartless.

• The Work is pollyannish
  • The Work is not pollyannish: No, it helps me discover what is already more true for me. If anything, it is sobering. It helps me look at situations from many different angles, including some I have resisted in the past, and get a fuller and more nuanced picture.
  • The Work is pollyannish: It is in that it reveals the complete innocence behind any story and belief. It does also help find the good in anything, but only as part of a bigger picture, and only as one story overlaid on an inherently neutral situation.
  • I am pollyannish: Well, yes. When I believe a story I am pollyannish in the sense of being naive. I naively take that story to be true, accurate, substantial, and act as if it is. Also, I am pollyannish/naive if I believe things about The Work or any other practice, if I rely on preconceived ideas of what I will find, and if I go to those ideas instead of what is alive here now.

(more…)

Byron Katie said somewhere that any statement is really a question, and when I look, that is what I find as well.

Any statement is really an innocent question about the world. And it is also very useful to take any statement as a question.

Any statement is a question. Any answer is a question.

A starting point for inquiry. For exploration. For discovering what is already more true for us than the initial story.

And then that becomes our new question.

Initial draft…

Some forms of inquiry…

First we have the ones focusing on awakeness itself, on awakeness noticing itself, such as the Big Mind part of the Big Mind process, the headless experiments, other forms of pointing out instructions, and - to some extent - question number four in The Work. We can also explore the content of awareness, see that it is all content, coming and going on its own time, yet something is not coming and going? What is it?

Then, on explorations of the sense fields, differentiating sensations, sounds, smells, taste and thought, how thoughts combine with the other sense fields to create gestalts that in themselves may look very real and substantial, and seeing thoughts as just thoughts.

Then, all the ones that invite us to investigate the nature of thoughts, such as investigations of sense fields, headless experiments, the Big Mind process, and The Work. Through these, we get to see the nature of thoughts as mimicking the other sense fields, as ephemeral, insubstantial, as just tools of practical value for this human self. And we get to see what happens when these thoughts are taken as more than just thoughts, when they are believed in, forms unquestioned gestalts with the other sense fields, and their content appears substantial and real.

Then, the ones that focuses on the content of thought, such as The Work, investigating beliefs in detail.

And one that is involved in most forms in inquiry, and also in how these writings come about: Allowing a question to sink in, as a seed, and an answer to surface later on its own time. A question comes up, is allowed to sink in, and something then surfaces seconds, minutes, hours, days or weeks later.

Inquiries can be structured, such as the Big Mind process and The Work, and also the headless experiments and exploring the sense fields, where the outcome is - to some extent - known in advance, if not by us then by others who have done it for themselves.

Or they can be more open, where attention just follows what happens with quiet interest and curiosity, allowing it to unfold, reveal itself, lead us along its own path, to something different, new, unexpected. We can do this with whatever arises, either informally in this way, or using specific techniques such as in Process Work.

And then there are some general pointers and orientations that are shared by many of these forms of inquiry, such as interest, curiosity, sincerity, receptivity, a stable attention, willingness to discover something unexpected, taking time and allow the questions and what comes up to sink in, inviting in the heart and a felt-sense of what is happening, allowing our human self to reorganize within the process, and so on.

There are also a group of inquiries I am not sure where fit in, for instance asking ourselves Adyashanti’s question what do I hope to get out of this? and is it true that this is not already here? This is a structured investigation, helping us to see what is already here. (Which they all do, by the way.)

What do we know about life, death and what continues?

Well, we know for sure that this human self dies. It is gone. Never to come back. So if we take this human self, with its particular personality, to be “I”, then “I” will surely die and be gone forever, reincarnation or not.

At the same time, we see that the world of form is a seamless whole. Everything has infinite causes and infinite effects. The world of form is reorganizing itself in always new and different ways. There is no I with an Other within the world of form. Doing, but no (separate, individual) doer.

And if we look, we find that within all of this coming and going, all of this change, something does not come and go. The awareness it all happens within does not come and go. It is that which all forms happens within, to and as, including all time and space, all causality, and any sense of an I with an Other. This awareness is inherently free from all of it, so is also free to allow the appearance of it all. This is what we really are, awakeness inherently free from any of its content, free from any I with an Other, yet allowing the appearance of it all in its fluid richness.

So in this context, personal karma does not have much meaning, nor does reincarnation if we think of an “I” that is reincarnated.

There is no “personal” karma because everything has infinite causes and infinite effects. Every single little thing this human self does has causes that stretch back to the beginning of time and out to the extent of the universe. It is the karma of the world of form as a whole and does not belong to any individual entity within this world of form.

And there is no reincarnation of a separate “I” either, because it doesn’t exist. It only appears when we filter the world through a sense of I and Other, which all comes from a thought, which all happens within, to and as awakeness itself.

At most, there may be a rebirth of this alive presence with its many flavors of infinite love, wisdom, luminosity, nurturing darkness, and somehow personal and impersonal at the same time. This alive presence at the soul level, which may come in through certain soul level practices such as prayer, and which we can place our sense of “I” on if we want. But this too is within content of awareness, this too comes and goes, this too is inherently free from any I with an Other. So even if there is some form of rebirth here, it is free from a rebirth of any “I”.

So why does Buddhism, and some other traditions, emphasize personal karma and reincarnation? They are not stupid, they too must have discovered this either in their own immediate experience or at least rationally, so why do they still - sometimes - emphasize it?

To me, it seems to be a teaching strategy. A teaching aimed at a particular, introductory, level.

It is far too easy to be caught up in the words about these things… ground, awakeness, emptiness, no I with an Other. As soon as we start believing the thoughts about these things, or anything else, it quickly gets really weird.

So then it is better to encourage people to continue to believe in a separate self, with individual karma and the prospect of being reborn, because that at least invites in some personal responsibility, some measure of ethical living, the practice of thinking of the longer term and far reaching consequences of ones actions.

(It easily becomes a fear based motivation, which Buddhism traditionally is not foreign to, so we may agree or disagree with that particular approach.)

It aligns our sense of a separate I, with a conscious view of a separate I, which anyway is more honest.

If we are going to believe in thoughts, as we do until there is a shift into awakeness awakening to itself, we may as well believe in these thoughts. They do at least have some practical everyday value.

And if we, in addition to this, practice, we may eventually come to see through it all. We may discover that there is really no I with an Other. That the world of form is a seamless whole, where the local manifestations of the movements of the whole appears as under the influence of infinite causes and infinite effects. That what we really are is this awakeness within, to and as the world of form appears, inherently and already absent of any I with an Other.

And that there is no, and never was any, personal karma. No reincarnation of any I. No substance to those teachings.

Yet a great deal of appreciation for them anyway, as practical guides for a certain phase of the path.

In advaita circles, it is popular to say that we don’t exist…

As usual, this gets really weird if it is just another belief. And it isn’t even quite true.

We do exist…

When there is a sense of an I with an Other, anchored in this human self, we do indeed exist in this way. It is experienced as real, and we act as if it is real, so it is definitely real to us.

This human self exists. It may be a part of the seamless world of form, and there may not be a separate I inherent in it, but this human self is definitely around, and as before, if we take ourselves to be this human self, then it is more than real to us.

We exist as what we really are, as this field of awakeness and form, as awakeness and whatever content of experience there may be. As this I without an Other.

And we don’t exist…

This human self is a seamless part of the world of form. It does not exist separate from anything else. It is similar to a whirl formed behind a rock in a stream. It is made up of the same water as the rest of the stream, the particular molecules making it up always changes, it has a definite lifespan, yet it is still there, clearly discernible.

There is no I with an Other inherent in anything, including this particular human self. An I with an Other does not exist anywhere, apart from in temporary experience.

As usual, we need to take our immediate experience seriously.

If there is a sense of a separate I here, then that is our starting point. That is where we are, so that is what we need to work with. Any journey starts where we are.

Also, any exploration of who and what we really are depends on taking our own experience seriously. It is one of our main tools and skills in the process. Trying to believe and make real something that doesn’t fit our immediate experience is only an exercise in strengthening that particular, opposite, pattern.

The same is true for our relationship to others. If they experience themselves as a separate I, as most do, then that is their reality, and that is where we need to meet them, no matter what is real to us. Anything else only shows our own lack of clarity.

Practicing working with ourselves where we are, and taking our own immediate experience seriously, is not only the most effective way for us to discover who and what we really are, it is also an exercise for meeting others where they are.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. (Matthew 5.5)

It’s fun to explore different saying of Jesus, and see what comes up… How is this true for me, in my own experience?

Meekness for me, in this context, means humility, receptivity, sincerity, a willingness to go outside of the familiar, to question what I take as true and real. A willingness to be wrong.

Specifically, it means to fully allow experience, and then allow it to work on me.

It means to find my beliefs, inquire into them, and find what is more true for me than the initial belief.

It means to embrace more of all of who I am at my human level, the good with the bad, the light with the shadows. Using the wider world as a mirror of what is right here, in my human self.

It means to explore what I really am, trusting what I discover even if it goes against what the whole world, and my past experience, is telling me. To discover that I am built open for the world, as Douglas Harding says. Built wide open for the world, for any experience, anything happening, any content of experience.

Inherit the world. This is what is invited in from this form of meekness.

I inherit the world in fully allowing experience, independent of its content. This allows for an appreciation of the fullness of experience, and the sweet nurturing fullness that is revealed when experience is not resisted.

I inherit the world in embracing more of all of what I am at my human level, allowing and living from more of the amazing richness here, mirroring the wider world. Whatever quality and dynamics I see out there are also right here, in my human self, either as a potential or more fully developed.

I inherit the world in finding what I already am, this no-thing full of the whole world. This field of awakeness of form inherently absent of an I with an Other, already and always allowing the whole world. The sense of an I with an Other falls away, revealing the whole world of form as an I without an Other.

And this is all a blessing. It is a blessing that this can be invited in through practices. It is a blessing that we already have and are this richness of our human self, and of what we are. It is a blessing that we can discover this for ourselves. And the journey itself, however it shows up, is a blessing.

A few things about thoughts…

(more…)

Byron Katie says that things come to pass, not to stay.

One way of understanding that is in the usual impermanence way, that the world of form is in flux. The world of form is flux. Things come and then pass. Whatever is within content of awareness is already gone as soon as we try to capture it. Whatever arises is always fresh, new, different. God does not repeat itself. (All of this, the whole appearance of flux and change, only arises within the realm of thoughts… memories, projections, ideas of continuity.)

Another way of understanding it is that things come in order to leave. Their reason for happening is to leave, so that we can see our attachments, our beliefs around it saying they should stay longer.

Expanding it a little, we can say that impermanence is an invitation for us to see each of our beliefs from many different angles. We get to see our beliefs that something should not happen even as it is. That things should go away even as they stay. That things should come even as they don’t. That things should stay even as they go away.

Impermanence is an invitation to notice and investigate those beliefs, revealing that which does not come and go, this awakeness that the world of form happens within, to and as.

Visiting Norway, I notice especially well how my experience of time has three layers…

First, as timeless. Whatever happens, happens as this timeless awakeness. It is the always changing world of form, unfolding within, to and as awakeness, which itself is always and already free from time and space.

Then looking back on any length of experience, as a lifetime worth of experience. The richness of any stretch of experience makes it full and rich.

Also looking back, as having happened in the blink of an eye. Any experience is ephemeral, only reflected in a memory, and seems to have happened in the blink of an eye.

My life in the US has this quality. Having happened within and as this timeless awakeness. Full and rich, as a lifetime worth of experience. And ephemeral and quick, as having happened in the blink of an eye.

And the same is the case for my life here in Norway. My visit here this time, past visits, and my time here before moving abroad.

(more…)

What are some of the ways we made in God’s image?

If we take God to be beyond and including all polarities, and ourselves to be this human being, then we see how this human being is intrinsically embedded in the wider world of form. It mirrors and is born from the universe as a whole, dependent on its existence by infinite causes reaching back to beginning of time and stretching out to the limits of the universe, mirroring and expressing the same dynamics, processes and patterns as the universe as a whole.

We can also find ourselves as timeless and spaceless awakeness, within which, to and as the world of form arises. In this way, we are made in God’s image. Although more accurately, the whole sense of I and Other falls away so there is no I to mirror God. It is the intimacy which is left when the intimacy of I and Other falls away.

And by finding ourselves as awakeness, find ourselves as this field of awakeness and form, already and inherently absent of an I and Other. So here, we are made in God’s image as awakeness, form, and form as nothing other than awakeness.

There are several ways to use the word gift, for instance in the sense of given to us vs. our own doing, or as a blessing vs. a curse, or as a gift of invitation to awakening.

If we take ourselves as a portion of the content of awareness, it makes sense to see some things as gifts, or given to us, and other things as of our own doing.

I am responsible for my everyday activities, including the ways I work on improving myself and my position in the world, but not responsible for what life hands me such as opportunities, accidents, illness and so on. Of course, there are times when the boundary gets fuzzy and we then see our task as sorting out what goes where.

But as soon as we take even a casual look at this, it becomes clear that it is not quite this simple. Or rather, that it is far more simple.

It is all gifts. Any inner and outer resource is a gift…. where we are born, the families we grow up in, education, our personality traits, our ambition, our motivations, our experiences, our skills, all of it are pure gifts. It is all given to us, or rather given from existence and life to itself.

And looking a little closer, we see that the whole inner/outer boundary is hard to pin down, partly because there is a gray zone, but really because it is not there. It is merely an idea placed on top of the world, and not inherent in anything. Everything about this human self, and anything else in the world, has infinite causes, and these reach back to the beginning of time and stretch out to the limits of the universe.

Finally, also by looking a little closer, the conventional boundary between gifts and curses (whether miniature or bigger) breaks down. That too is not inherent in our life. Whatever happens is inherently neutral, and we filter it as one or the other through a set of ideas.

In a more conventional way, we can hold onto an idea of what is desirable for our human self, and interpret and make situations into a gift, whether it is illness or health, problems or ease, failure or success, getting what we want or not getting i. It all becomes fodder for growth, maturing and making lemonade out of lemons. If we cannot quite do this as it is happening, we can at least do it afterwards. Being able to do this is in itself a gift, within this context.

We can also see whatever happens as a gift in another way, as an invitation to wake up to what we already are. To notice ourselves as this awakeness that all experiences unfold within, to and as, already and always inherently free from any I with an Other, and anything else coming from thought.

In a very simple way, we can see this in how stress helps us notice beliefs and rigid attachment to stories and identities, which we can then explore to find what is already more true for us than the initial story.

Awakening to what we are seems independent of content in one way, yet very much dependent on it in another way.

It is dependent on a shift in content of awareness from beliefs in stories, identification with content, and a sense of I and Other, to a release from all of those. This all happens very much within the realm of form and content of awareness.

At the same time, an awakening to what we are is pretty much independent of any other content of awareness. Thoughts, sensations and so on, all of it can stay the same.

The only shift is from a sense of I with an Other, to awakeness noticing itself and its own content as itself, already and always inherently absent of an I with an Other.

I am reading Alberto Villoldo’s book The Four Winds, and was surprised to see this in the preface:

Every mystic tradition, from the Jewish cabala to the Upanishads of the Hindus, recognizes the existence of things that can be known but not told. There are certain qualities of sense experience that seem to defy description.

There are of course experiences it is difficult for us to describe, but that has little to do with what the mystics talk about. To make that connection is misleading.

What the mystics talk about is not within the realm of content of experience, it is simply a realization that there is no I with an Other. And this realization is independent of the content of experience. The content can be mundane, everyday experiences. It can be pain. Joy. Bliss. Dullness. Extraordinary visions. It doesn’t matter.

And that is exactly why it is difficult, not to say impossible, to talk about. Not because it is an unusual or ephemeral or fuzzy experience. But because it is free from any particular content of experience, so also free from what words can describe. Words differentiate and split the world, and this realization is all of it awakening to itself, free from all differentiation yet also containing all differentiation.

(The realization itself may be independent, in certain ways, of the content of experiences. At the same time, the content of experience can appear to lead up to a shift into this realization. And the realization is also reflected in the content of experience: the thoughts creating a sense of I and Other are seen as just thoughts, and there is a reorganization of the human self that typically follows such a realization, even if it is just a taste or glimpse.)

I am still learning to be OK with and trust the impulses that comes up, allowing the process to unfold and go wherever its inherent intelligence takes it.
In this case, it has to do with what I write about here. My thoughts tells me it is all completely obvious. I have already written about it ad nauseum. There are lots of other topics equally or more important. Why not expand? Why not explore something else? Why chose to appear as a monomaniac on this blog, when that is not so much the case in the rest of my life? Why have a blog in the first place? Why embarrass myself by spending time and energy exploring and writing about what is really just life 101?

Yet, the same topics still come up, still wanting to be explored. So there must still be more for me there.

One of the reasons these same topics keep coming up is that I am involved in groups that do not see this as obvious, which is a curse, since their focus is far more narrow than I would like. And it is a blessing, since it nudges me to make this more my own. It is also humbling in a good way, since it forces me to more actively go into and explore things that I consciously take as life 101.

I know from experience that if I fully allow it, if I wholeheartedly go along with it and go into the process, then it frees up the flow and it brings me somewhere surprising and more rich and interesting than what I could have thought out in advance. The process has its own intelligence, far beyond my limited horizon. And by letting go, by actively following the process, it also frees up my more ordinary intelligence and guidance.

They both become alive and active. The deep current is there, mysteriously taking me somewhere unfamiliar to me. And my ordinary intelligence is there as well, now more stimulated and engaged by the deeper current.

If I resist the process, there is a sense of stagnation and stuckness. I try to go one direction, exclusively guided by my thoughts, and the process wants to take my in another direction, so there is a tug-of-war which is only exhausting.

So, I choose to humble myself, writing about whatever I write about here.

I found this in one of cjsmith’s comments to MDs reply to cj’s post on arrogance in writing:

I think the project of trying to reconstruct the original meaning is a vital one, so long as we remember it is shaped by and for our current thinking, needs, and assumptions. I just think originalism hides this latter fact to its own theoretical detriment. There are better and worse reconstructions. But there are reconstructions. They involve a construction.

So I will now repeat my charge. No more smoke and mirrors. No more ducking and stalling. Why is this philosophical criticism wrong? Feel free to cite facts, opinions, logical arguments, etc.

Otherwise you show yourself (imo) to be out of your depth and would do better to admit it and walk away.

It seems that this has more to do with using a simple language or not, as the initial comment by MD points to. Why not use a simple language to talk about something that is most likely quite simple?

Without having read the posts leading up to this dialog, my (naive) guess that what cjsmith is trying to say is that we cannot say anything for sure about what has happened. All our ideas about it are just our best guesses. And that is of course true about anything. We don’t know anything for sure, maybe apart from that there is awareness and its content.

It is obvious to just about anyone, simple, and doesn’t need a lot of argumentation, fancy terminology or many words.

Of course, we can elaborate on specifically why we cannot say anything for sure about something in particular, which can be interesting and entertaining to a certain extent, but also just an elaboration of that simple noticing.

The reasons for using a complex and terminology-laden language are many. For instance, it can be a shorthand for communicating with oneself and others, if all we want to do is communicating with a small in-group. It can also, to a certain extent, be more precise. (Although that argument is often not as solid as it may appear. The clearest thinkers in any area often use a very simple and clear language.)

More interestingly, why do we sometimes use a more complex language than we need to? It can give a nice comforting sense of belonging to an in-group. It can give prestige. It can give a sense of superiority, and of being right. It can create a smoke screen to hide behind, for instance by muddling the subject which makes it difficult for others to respond. It can intimidate others from responding and engaging in a real dialog. It can give me an excuse to shoot down what someone is saying if they are not using the right terminology.

As someone said, if you can’t see the bottom of a pond, it doesn’t necessarily mean it is deep. It may just be muddled.

I can find all of those for myself.

An interesting point from Indistinct Union:

All writing is arrogance….of a sort. To say anything, however humble, is to assume one has something to say that has some validity, that someone will find useful. I put these thoughts on the World Wide Web. That’s arrogance.

It may be true, but some other things about writing and communicating - whether with others or myself - are also true…

Independent of anything else happening, when I communicate with myself or others…

• It helps me clarify certain views and perspectives I am already familiar with
• It helps me explore a certain area I am already familiar with, but in more depth
• I can move beyond what I am familiar with, in the same general direction, in a more deliberate and systematic way
• I sometimes surprise myself by coming up with something different from what I expected or something beyond what I was familiar with
• I can actively take on, explore, and find the validity in views and perspectives I am less familiar with, including those very different from or opposite to my habitual perspectives. In this way, I move outside of what I am familiar with, it helps me understand better where others are coming from, and I also become more familiar with other sides of myself and the human experience
• I can explore areas that are new or unfamiliar to me and learn something about them
• By writing something down, I can more easily let go of it. I don’t need to try to remember it anymore, and can move on.

Among these, I see that all happen for me, and all have their own value.

If something is happening in the world, and I bring up something that can be a catalyst for change, I usually go with what is already familiar to me and habitual views (respect for life, widening circles of care, meeting people where they are, and so on).

If I work on myself, I often explore views and areas different from what I am used to, through for instance The Work or Voice Dialog or something similar. And this latter feeds back to the first since it helps me loosen my grip on certain views, understand better where others are coming from, and see how we are all in the same boat.

(As I write this, I see how certain KW flavored integralists will see this as green and holistic and all the things they don’t like very much, but that is not all there is to it. For instance, meeting people where they are at and speaking a language they understand also - obviously - means meeting people at red with red/amber means when necessary, including using force.)

As a receiver of what someone else communicates….

• In general, whatever is communicated mirrors something in myself and helps me notice it. I find in myself what I see out there… views, experiences, qualities and more.
• It helps me clarify, explore and move beyond views and areas I am already familiar with.
• It helps me become familiar with views and areas unfamiliar to me, which helps me find it in myself and also understand better where others are coming from. We all are familiar with views and areas unfamiliar to someone else, so by sharing this inevitably happens.
• It can help me explore views coming up in response to the view expressed. What I hear or see may trigger something in me in response, which helps me clarify and become familiar with it, and act on it as well in some situations.

So wherever it comes from, it can be of benefit of the receiver. In that sense, any sharing of views, perspectives, information, opinions, experiences and so on is an act of generosity. It may mirror something in the receiver, and may also trigger something different in response.

Does all of this automatically happen. Maybe yes and no. It may well be that most or all of this inevitably happens, and it then becomes an invitation that is consciously accepted and acted on or not. And for some, it is an active and conscious practice to work with it this way.

A good post from Vince:

A friend of mine recently posed the question, “Is it just me, or are there a lot of people waking up these days?” It’s a really interesting question, one that I’ve thought about from time to time. And so talking it over with my partner I came up with at least six different possibilities (I’m sure there are more) that one might consider with regards to the question:

1. It is possible that with the dawn of the information age we are simply much more aware of that then we were before of how many people are waking up.
2. On the journey toward awakening and with a more realistic model of awakening, the amount of people we see who are awake or waking up increases due to our not having far-fetched models and because we’ve simply had more time to meet them.
3. It’s difficult to compare how many people are awake today versus in the past because we don’t have much reliable empirical data.
4. From the purely statistical perspective, the steady rise in the world’s population would mean there are more awakened people, if we assume a similar awakening per capita.
5. One argument is that as the speed of the world increases the ability to wake up to what is always already there, simply via the higher contrast, becomes easier.
6. Humans may be evolving in mental, emotional, and spiritual complexity over time (Ken Wilber’s evolutionary spirituality perspective), with one major outcome being that more people are waking up.

And some additional points that comes to mind:

1. Longer lifespan, as Duff mentions in a comment to the original post.
2. The filter of time. Most of us know only a handful of painters from the renaissance, but people at the time knew about many more. Just as time filters who among painters are remembered by later generations, the same happens with mystics.
3. Increased access & opportunity
   • Easier access to simple, effective practices from a range of traditions, and new variations such as headlessness, the Big Mind process and The Work. Also, a quicker and wider dissemination of simple/effective practices through old and new media.
   • Easier access to teachers, in person and through books, audio, video, internet.
   • For some, more leisure time so more time for practice.
4. There are more people today who get to taste most or all of their material desires. This means that more get to see, through own experience, that it doesn’t quite do it, and some of these (a small fraction) will then shift onto a path of spiritual practices. (On the other hand, we live in a global culture that promotes the idea of happiness through getting what we want in the material world, and this idea may have been less prominent - and tempered by other views - in previous times and other cultures.)
5. More inclusive definitions of awakening. If we take a broad (or vague) definition to awakening, as many do, then many has indeed awakened… but this may include people who have a soul level awakening (alive presence), a oneness awakening (a self here one with God and everything else), receptivity to or glimpses/intuitions of soul/oneness/nondual awakenings, and also a more stable nondual awakening (free from an I with an Other). Even among many so called “awakened” teachers today, we see people who express these different forms of awakening. If we lump it all together, it includes quite a lot of people. The Translucent Revolution by Arjuna Ardagh is one of many examples of this lumping together, where he mostly seems to talk about people who have a receptivity to and intuition/glimpses of soul/oneness/nondual awakenings.

The most simple and down-to-earth explanations seem sufficient to explain why it seems that more people are waking up today.

We hear about it more. We often use a very broad and vague definition of awakening which by necessity includes a lot of people.

More and more people have a sense, taste and glimpse of different forms of awakening through different practices such as the Big Mind process, so they and others may see that as an awakening. (It is an awakening, in that it awakens them to what is beyond a perception filtered through I and Other. But it is not an awakening in terms of - for instance - a stable nondual awakening where the whole sense of I and Other falls away.) We hear about awakenings more readily through modern communication.

And finally, more people may indeed awaken because there are more of us, and easier access to practices and teachers.

Ten questions about Buddhism from christiananswers.net, and what comes up for me around it…

1. If there is no personal God, and if one can attain nirvana only as a result of the destruction of thirst (tanha) / desire, therefore the destruction of attachment, therefore the destruction of existence–from whence, do you suppose, did personality (or even the sense of personality) ever come? Exactly what is it, and where does it go when one ceases to exist?
   • All of these questions is something we each have to explore for ourselves, in what is here now.
   • What I find for myself is that a sense of I and Other comes from beliefs (rigid identification with stories and identities, and a disowning of the truth of their reversals), and this is what creates a sense of a separate self, and of separation, which - for all its juiciness and wonderful gifts - in turn brings a sense of something missing and of dissatisfaction.
   • The human self and its personality does not really have much to do with all of this, apart from being something that we conveniently anchor this sense of a separate self in. It is an intrinsic part of the world of form, as long as it is around, inherently and already absent of an I with an Other.
   • Of course, we can also talk about a soul level, often experienced as an alive presence, which can pass from human form to human form through death and birth, and while the first part of it (ourselves as alive presence) is something we can notice here and now, the second part is more speculative and comes from a story.
2. Without a personal God, on what basis can there ever exist any human moral standard or ethic–and therefore, in what sense do you mean for us to understand the terms noble and truth, i.e. The Four Noble Truths, or the term right in the eight-fold path of right views, resolve, speech, conduct, occupation, efforts, awareness, and meditation?
   • Good question! It is one that has many layers to it, and probably continues to unfold as we explore it through life.
   • No story has an absolute truth to it. It is always limited, and have a temporary, practical and pragmatic value only. It is a tool for our human self to function and operate in the world.
   • At the same time, when we bring in the heart, we naturally want to support life. This human self is part of life, and as it matures our circles of care, concern and compassion tends to widen to include more and more of life, until nothing and no-one is left out. And this heart is our guidance, telling us which stories and which actions in the world are most likely to support life, based on whatever experience and practical wisdom we may have gained through our life so far.
   • Since our heart is not always so open or available, it is good to have some more formal guidelines as well, such as the golden rule, the ten commandment, the various Buddhist precepts, and so on. There is no absolute truth in any of them, but they do have an important practical function in reducing suffering and increasing the likelihood of happiness for ourselves and others.
   • The four noble truths are also relative truths, since they are expressed in the form of stories, and they are noble because they reflect a direct insight that comes through awakening, and can also guide us towards that awakening. (When this awakeness here now awakens to itself, and thoughts are seen as just thoughts.)
   • The eight paths of the eightfold path are similarly right in a limited and practical sense. If you want to awaken, then they are useful guidelines to follow. If not, then they are not right for you. It all depends on your goals and motivation.
3. If your teaching, which came on the scene in the sixth century B.C., alone represents truth and liberation–what provision was there for the millions who lived previous to the advent of your enlightenment and teaching? Why do you suppose that you, of all humankind, were the one to come on this insight when you did?
   • I don’t see Buddhism as alone representing truth and liberation. On the contrary, people from a wide range of traditions and cultures have expressed similar insights as those expressed in Buddhism, including many Christian saints and mystics. If Buddhism points to anything that is real and available to be discovered, then it is available to anyone independent of tradition or culture. There is no need to adhere to Buddhism to notice these things, Buddhism is just one of many collections of pointers and practices that can help you notice it for yourself.
4. If, as you are reported to have said, nirvana is “beyond…good and evil”, then, in the ultimate sense, there is really no difference between Hitler and Mother Theresa, or between helping an old lady across the street and running her down–correct?
   • One answer is: yes, that is true. It is all expressions of life, of existence, of the world of form, which is inherently free from stories of good and bad, right and wrong, and so on.
   • The other, more practical, answer is: wrong, that is a misconception. In our daily life, it makes a big difference if you support or take life. It makes a big practical difference. One leads to suffering for yourself and others, and the other leads to alleviation of suffering and maybe even some happiness.
   • When the ultimate answer is realized in immediate awareness, it is liberation. But if it is merely believed in at the story level and used to justify actions, it becomes poison. That’s why ethics are so strongly emphasized in Buddhism, to prevent those confusions.
   • The ultimate answer is something we each can discover for ourselves, and it then becomes a new context for the more practical answer. And the practical answer stays the same whether we have realized the ultimate answer or not.
5. Thich Nhat Hanh, bodhisattva (holy man) and author of Living Buddha, Living Christ © 1995 by Riverhead Books, attempts to homogenize Buddhism and Christianity. Though you never knew of Jesus Christ, it would seem that you too might suggest that one could conceivably be a “Christian Buddhist”. Yet how could that ever be possible given Christianity’s categorical differences with Buddhism on matters like the nature of sin, reincarnation, and salvation–to name just a few. Jesus claimed to be the Truth. The Christian Scripture says that “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
   
   • See another post on this topic.
   • It all depends on what aspects of the different traditions we emphasize.
   • If we take the typical theology of Christianity as our base, then we cannot combine the two, apart from maybe using some insights and practices from Buddhism as practical tools within a mainly Christian life. (Which can be very helpful for some people.)
   • If we take the Buddhist philosophy as our base, then Christ is seen as an awakened one, a Buddha, and we look beyond the theology to find shared insights and expressions of awakening. As in the previous example, we can also find insights and practices from Christianity very helpful within a mainly Buddhist context.
   • And we can also look at the insights of the mystics of Christianity, and find a close alignment between what they describe and express and what Buddhist teachers describe and express. At the mystical level, there is a difference in flavor, but a description of what looks like the same.
6. How do you feel about the many variations of your teaching that have evolved down through the years? Please comment on Theravada (38%), Mahayana (56%), Tantrism or Vajranaya, Tibetan (6%; Dalai Lama), and Zen Buddhism?
   • I find it to be a beautiful diversity, formed by time and culture and what is appropriate to people in different cultures and different times. Buddhism is often described as similar to water: it can be poured into any vessel (culture, circumstances), and take the form of the vessel.
   • I have personally benefited greatly from insights and practices from Varjayana, Zen and Theravada traditions.
7. Chuck Stanford says: “Like cloudy water, our minds are basically pure and clear, but sometimes they become cloudy from the storms of discursive thoughts. Just like water, if we let our minds sit undisturbed the mud and muck will eventually settle to the bottom. Once this happens we can begin to get in touch with our basic goodness. It is through this basic goodness that the Buddha discovered that we can lead sane lives.” But, Mr. Gautama, what if you are wrong about our being basically good? The Bible says that we’re conceived in sin. What if there is a personal God to whom we will all one day answer? What if your enlightenment (awakening) was really only a dream?
   • There are many possible answers to this.
   • One that made sense to me in my childhood (long before I got interested in Buddhism), and still does, is that to me, the main part is to live a life that supports life. If God has any problem with that, then too bad
   • Another answer, which only makes sense within a certain context, is that an awakening is to our timeless nature, which contains space & time and the world of form, and this world of form is no other than our timeless nature. Here, sin is seen as just an idea overlaid on this field of awakeness and form. But, as I said, this only makes sense when it is realized, and it is not meant as an argument at the level of stories.
8. In the film Beyond Rangoon Laura’s guide says that the (Buddhist) Burmese expect suffering, not happiness. When happiness comes, it is to be enjoyed as a gift, but with the awareness that it will soon certainly pass. If the ultimate Buddhist hope is to just leave the present wheel of birth and rebirth and enter into the ineffable bliss of Nirvana, where is the motivation to do good, and to actively oppose injustice, in this present life?
   • Well, these days the Burmese monks certainly demonstrate a strong motivation to oppose injustice, in an active and engaged way, even to the point of sacrificing ones life for it.
   • The two are not opposed, and are, in a sense, intimately linked. The “escape” is only an escape from blind and unquestioned beliefs and identities, and actually allows for a more full and juicy embrace of our life, including opposing injustice when the situation calls for it. (See other posts for more on this topic.)
9. How do we reconcile the Dalai Lama’s observation that “Every human being has the potential to create happiness”, with your own teaching that suffering is caused by desire? If one sets out to resist desire, why would one ever then entertain the desire for happiness, and thus work to create it?
   • Good question, again!
   • Teachings are aimed at different levels, and sometimes seem contradictory.
   • Also, Buddhism talks about the desire for awakening, and happiness and release from suffering, as the golden chain. It is still a chain (a desire coming from a mistaken identification), but it is a chain that can lead to a release from this chain.
10. Personal Trivia: Did you really sit under that bo tree for seven full days–without ever eating any figs? Did your remarkably sensitive, compassionate, nature come more from your mother or father? How did your son, left to grow up without a father, feel about your “Great Renunciation”?
    • Well, I didn’t. But I can imagine into his situation.
    • One thing I imagine is that his family probably didn’t like it very much, and that Gautama Buddha felt a great deal of tenderness for his family because of it. It may even have been one of his motivations for deepen into his practice, and later his teaching. He would probably, I imagine, have been very open about this and not tried to explain it away. Sometimes we have to make hard decisions, and others would have chosen differently.
    • Btw: There seems to be a parallel with Jesus here. Didn’t he even encourage his disciples to leave his families behind? (Fortunately, this is not a requirement for neither Buddhist nor Christians today, unless we commit to a lengthy solitary practice.)

Two general ways the word consciousness can be used…

First, as awareness and its content, recognized as no other than awareness itself. This awake void arises as form, it allows yet is inherently free from any and all forms. It is also inherently and already free from any sense of I and Other, which only comes through making stories something more than just thoughts. This is Big Mind, Spirit, Brahman, whether it is awake to itself or not.

Then, filtered through beliefs in different ways.

For instance, we can filter out pure awareness from its content, and call this pure awareness consciousness. Seeing is consciousness, but not the seen.

Or we can use consciousness to refer to awareness and its content, but just a region of its content. For instance, it can mean a combination of awareness and what is inside the boundary of the psyche, such as thoughts, feelings and so on.

This last version is also the most common one. After all, it reflects how it appears when we believe in the story of a separate self. Interestingly, it is also the one that is most contrived, forced and arbitrary, since it is filtered through the most layers of stories.

Without having much familiarity with the tradition, it seems that the shahadah, lā ilāha illā-llāh, there is no God but God, can be taken in several different ways.

There is the ethnocentric interpretation, taking the Islamic God as the only one, or rather, the Islamic interpretation of God as the only correct one.

Then, the interpretation of the practitioner or faithful, having God as the single or main focus for ones attention and life.

Or the worldcentric one, seeing God as One, with many interpretations and faiths appropriate to the culture and needs of different people.

Or the one of the mystics, seeing all as God, and eventually allowing a sense of separate self to fall away.

The second part of the shahadan, wa muħammadan rasÅ«lu-llāh, means that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and I can’t say I have any problems with that.

(more…)

Spiritual teachings are maybe most helpful when they become an invitation for inquiry, for exploring what is already here, alive in immediate awareness. In this case, teachings become pointing out instructions and a guided inquiry.

Adyashanti is a master of this form of teaching, even if his talks may take the superficial form of just regular talks. And Genpo Roshi, with his Big Mind process, explicitly and more formally makes his talks into a process of inquiry, allowing the talk to be woven from the inquiry of everyone participating.

They can also be helpful if they inspire to practice, although in this case, they often point to something that appears to be somewhere else, and they may use strategies such as fear and hope to inspire practice, and all of this has its own problems.

This is something we find in more devotional traditions, and for instance also sometimes in Tibetan Buddhism.

Teachings can also be basic and practical information, offering suggestions for practice and some maps to help orient and navigate the terrain. These teachings can be very helpful, in the right context and moderate amounts.

If the teachings become overly abstract, they tend to just remain in the realm of ideas and thoughts. And if they are used by the teacher mainly for entertaining him or herself, or worse, for propping up certain beliefs and fixed viewpoints, they may be even less useful. Although they can, if the recipients take it that way, become mirrors for seeing in oneself the tendency to get lost in and intoxicated by the realm of ideas, and for seeing in oneself the way we use beliefs to prop up other beliefs and fixed viewpoints.

Then there are the expressions of what is alive here now, which may inspire others to look for themselves, and also offer some suggestions for how and where to look. These are often accidental or unintentional teachings, but can still be helpful for others.

Poetry, for instance that of Hafiz and Rumi, is an example of these immediate expressions which may also serve as a pointer, reminder or inspiration.

And finally, as these writings, there are accounts of explorations somewhere on the path, which can also be helpful for others for any of the reasons above, and maybe for a sense of being on the path together.

Here is a simple way to talk about the absolute and relative:

The absolute is what is, when not filtered through stories.

The relative is using the filter of thoughts to help this human self navigate and function in the world.

And it is all happening as the absolute, as awake void and form, as temporary form manifestations of God.

(more…)

From a brief email exchange: 

(more…)

Ever since I read Yogananda’s autobiography in my teens, and was completely baffled by his movie analogy, I have had an interest in that particular image.

It seems that movies can be an analogy in many different ways…

• Ground free from form. Awakeness is inherently free from its own content. It is stainless, untouched by it. And in the same way, a movie screen is inherently free from whatever movie is shown on it. An image is replaced by another, and the previous image is not there anymore. A new movie is shown, and there is no trace of the old one.
• Perfect and imperfect. The content of a movie can be/include/show imperfection, suffering, confusion and so on. Yet, it is also perfect light falling on the movie screen, or perfect dots on the TV or computer screen. The light is untouched by the form it creates, as awareness is untouched by it content.
• Awakeness is its own content. Light falls onto a movie screen and makes up an endless variety of forms, and these forms are no other than light itself. In the same way there is awakeness and the content of awakeness, and this content is no other than awakeness itself taking on a temporary form.
• Temporarily lost in the movie. When we watch a movie, we may be temporarily lost in the movie. We forget it is a movie, and get absorbed into the story. In the same way, Big Mind (God) can get lost in its own play, forgetting what is really is. And as we at some point remember that it is a movie we are watching, Big Mind at some point also remembers itself (although maybe not within this particular life).

Projections are projections of an experience, such as a story, a belief, a knot, an emotion, a process, or anything else. They can be seen as inherent in what they are put on top of, or a projection of an experience, and they can appear as only out there and not in here, and the other way around.

A few different flavors…

• Projection of a story. The story arises here and now, as a thought, but is placed out there or an imaginary past or future. I have a story about my past, and that is all it is. And I can recognize it as only a story, a thought, arising here now, or imagine that it is somehow real, somehow inherent in a real and substantial past.
• Projection of a belief. The belief arises here and now, put is placed out there or in the past and future. This is the same as above, only known really taken as substantial, real and inherent in what the story is placed on.
• Projection of a knot. The knot arises here and now, put is placed out there or in the past and future. With beliefs come certain emotions and habitual behaviors, and this whole conglomerate can be projected as well.
• Projection of an emotion. The emotion arises here and now, but is placed out there or in the past and future. This is what most people recognize as a projection. Anger arises here, but I have an identity as not angry so it can’t be happening here but over there instead, in my neighbor. Or, I am quite familiar with anger here, and recognize the symptoms of anger in my neighbor, so assume he is angry.
• Projection of a process. The process happens here and now, but is placed out there or in the past and future. Birth and death, creation and destruction, are some good examples. Here now, my experiences continually change, there is continuous birth and creation, and death and destruction. This is not really the projection of a process, but of a story about a process. There is the recognition of change and processes only through comparing images of what is and what was, so this too is all from a story.
• And projections can be blind or not, in two different ways.
  • They can appear as coming from an experience, or being inherent in what is out there. I can recognize them as coming from just an ephemeral experience, or take it as something more solid and real.
  • They can appear as only out there and not also in here, in this human self, or the other way around. In other words, I can recognize what arises as part of our shared humanity, or not.

Meanings of freedom…

• Freedom to do whatever the personality wants to do (follow likes/dislikes etc.) This one is usually moderated by limitations in our circumstances, and these limitations are resisted to the extent there is identification with the likes and dislikes of the personality. In its extreme, when there is a strong identification with the likes and dislikes of the personality, and not many limitations in our circumstances preventing us in acting on them, it becomes the Paris Hilton type freedom which can get us into trouble at our everyday human level. This freedom is dependent on circumstances in the wider world.
• Freedom from blindly being in the grips of habitual patterns. This comes in degrees, and is experienced as a choice between following or not following our impulses, patterns and so on. An impulse comes up, and there is less of a compulsiveness to fuel, act on, or resist it. This comes from a release of identification with, and belief in, the stories associated with these patterns. This is an early taste of a freedom from being dependent on circumstances in the wider world for our contentment and happiness.
• Freedom from taking stories as real, even when there is still a belief there somewhere. We recognize a belief as a belief from its symptoms of a sense of contraction, something to protect, and so on, so there is some release right there, even in the midst of believing in it on some level. By recognizing the symptoms coming from taking a story as real, and being somewhat familiar with the dynamics around it, there is already some release of identification with it.
• Freedom from believing in stories, in a thorough way. This allows Ground to notice itself and brings a freedom from identification with content of awareness, which is also a freedom to allow any content.

The first freedom, the one of the personality, is a freedom to seek some things in the world of form, and avoid - at least in the short term - other things and situations. It is a freedom dependent on circumstances in the wider world. The following two gives an early taste of a freedom from circumstances for our contentment and happiness. The final one, the one of freedom from stories in general, is a freedom from needing anything to be different from how it is.

Meanings of ego…

• Organization of the human self, the software allowing it to operate and function in the world. (Software, because it is malleable, although encompasses both body and psyche.)This one stays around before and after Ground awakening, and can continue to heal, mature and develop through experience and practice. Before awakening, this healing, maturing and development makes it easier to be who we take ourselves to be, and after Ground awakening, it makes for better skillful means in expressing and living Ground awakening through this human self, relieving suffering for others in terms of who they take themselves to be, and also invite Ground to awaken to itself through others.
• A sense of separate self, and the field of awake void and form filtered through this sense, creating an appearance of I and Other, center and periphery, outside and inside. This one is created through taking an imagined separate self as real, and can appear very convincing. We can see these stories as only thoughts through various forms of inquiry.
• A fueling of an identity specifying how this separate self is different from the wider world. This one deepens the sense of split between I and the wider world. I become better and worse than others, and stories are fueled about how this is so. We can reduce this sense of split through working with projections, finding in this human self the qualities we see in the wider world, and the other way around. The wider world becomes a mirror for this human self, and we find that anything here is universally human, alt