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, although also with a certain flavor (and this flavor of uniqueness is also universally human).

I have enjoyed listening to the very well produced (as always) episodes on spirituality and science from To The Best of Our Knowledge.

As much as I have enjoyed the programs, it also strikes me how the discussions and interviews almost entirely leaves out an developmental approach and understanding of religious views and values in general. This is especially curious considering how many these days reads Ken Wilber’s books, which do an excellent job popularizing much of the research in that area, and also puts it into a larger framework.

Why do so many in mainstream media talk about the relationship between religion and science, and leave out that - crucial - aspect of it? Maybe they are just concerned about offending someone. (It cannot only be explained by journalists not being at a stage that “gets” the stage view, because they can know about it and decide to cover it even if they are not there themselves.)

It also strikes me that the topic is sometimes approached in a way that is both overly complicated and superficial at the same time, even by people who have explored it to some extent.

For instance, one person talking about the Kaballah talks about how God is the energy that animates the world. But if we look here and now, we find that what everything arises out of, within and to is the stainless awakeness, independent of any content, and that any form of energy is part of content itself. Of course, energy here may be used in a poetic way, referring to something that is not content.

And then the other person talking about how the timeless nirvana of Buddhism is incompatible with creations stories in general, as for instance Genesis in Christianity. But again, if we look here now, we find that the timeless Buddha mind is this crystal clear awakeness within which all forms arise, including the unfolding of the world of form, which in turn includes any stories overlaid upon it such as creation stories from religions and science.

By looking here now, we can find them completely compatible. One is about this timeless awakeness all form arises within, from and to, and the other about the world of form itself. Cleanly divided, yet both the play of the awakeness and not two.

photo by Automatt

photo by John in Japan

High Dynamic Range imaging is a way of extending the tonal range of a photo, or said another way, to include details in both the highlights and the shadows. It has been used in film for a while, and is now also increasingly used among digital photographers, where three or five or more photos of the same scene, each exposed differently, are combined into a single image with an extended tonal range.

A HDR image itself has a tonal range far beyond what any screen or any paper can represent, so it needs to be compressed and processed down into something that can be represented in these forms. It is similar to a “digital negative” that needs to be developed, and there an infinite number of ways of doing this, and no one set way that works in all situations. The processing is different each time, and tailored for the specific image and its purpose.

This is a good analogy for talking about Big Mind, about finding ourselves as this awakeness and its content, inherently absent of an I with an Other.

Big Mind is beyond what can be touched by words, as a HDR image is far beyond what can be accurately represented on screen or in print. And in each case, there is an infinite number of ways to translate it down to something that can be expressed. There is an infinite number of ways to process a HDR negative, and an infinite number of ways to put an immediate experience of/in Big Mind into words. And in each case, how we do it depends on what we want to express - a particular image, an aspect of Big Mind, and the circumstances - what it is going to be used for and what purpose it is intended to serve.

Any analogy breaks down somewhere, which is why it is only an analogy. And this one breaks most clearly down in that a HDR negative and finished processed image are not different in type, only in tonal range, and that Big Mind is inherently free from anything that can be expressed in words, even as it is (attempted) expressed in words. Big Mind is beyond and includes any polarities, and words only works within polarities.

In the case of HDRs, it is a difference in degree, and in the case of Big Mind and words, a difference in type.

I attended a talk where the speaker said something along the lines of the only thing I can be certain about is that I am here, and body breathes and have weight on the floor.

When I look into this for myself, I find that the only thing I can be certain about is that there is awareness and content of awareness. And that this content of awareness is awareness itself. It is its own content.

And I cannot be certain about anything within this content. Everything this content appears as are only appearances, filtered, interpreted and flavored in many ways. Any differentiation, and any characteristic, of anything within content comes from an overlay of stories, and an infinity of these stories are possible.

It may appear that there is an I here, with the rest of the world as an Other, but that comes from a story of a separate self as one particular region of what arises (a set within what arises), and the wider world as the rest. It may appear that body breathes, but that too comes from a story of a body, as a particular region of what arises, and a story of breath overlaid on particular sensations within this region. And it may appear that all of this happens within space and time, but space is a story overlaid on what arises, creating the appearance of space, and time is another story, creating the appearance of continuity.

All of this happens in immediate awareness, and, when attention goes there, is seen as it happens.

A quick exploration of forms of love, which can be put into three general categories: the love of existence, selfless love, and possessive love.

Possessive love it the easy one. This is the one where we believe in a thought such as “I need her”, which comes out in all sorts of (often subtly) possessive ways, including despair and drama. Whenever there is any belief in any thought, possessiveness is included (I want this, not that).

This is the form of love we see in movies, read about in the magazines, hear about in the news, and what most of us know a lot about from our own lives.

Then there is selfless love, which is what is expressed through a human being when Ground is awake to itself, yet still functionally connected with this particular human being. It is Big Mind awake to itself, as a field of awakeness and form, inherently absent of any I with an Other, lived through a human self.

It can take a yin (gentle, receptive, empathic) or yang (forceful, cutting through) form, and it can focus on temporary or more thorough relief (making it easier for people to be who they take themselves to be, or aiding the Ground to wake up to itself in other humans beings).

Selfless love is also expressed in more or less skillful ways, depending on the maturity, development and training of the human self. Even here, strategies may, at a conventional level, backfire if there is a lack of maturity, development, skills, and understanding of the situation.

And finally, the love inherent in existence itself. This one takes many forms.

First, that anything exists at all is love. It arises within, to and as consciousness, as love.

Then, that all the awful things happening to living beings, from a conventional view, are not really that awful from the view of consciousness, or Big Mind. It is all temporary, ephemeral, a play within and for God. There is no separate self in any of these beings, only the one seamless consciousness as both the experiencing and experienced.

And that anything happening, any situation, is an invitation for Ground to wake up to itself. Even within this one there are many forms. For instance, whenever there is a belief in a story (so Ground does not notice itself) there is discomfort, and this is an encouragement to change and, eventually, to see what is more true for us than the story.

And also one that is a little less general: that there are more explicit invitations for Ground to wake up in our world, in human cultures. Forms of invitations we recognize even when we are absorbed in stories.

I listened briefly to a Zen broadcast where the teacher talked about Buddhism not acknowledging any creator. She probably wanted to make it clear how it differs from conventional Theistic traditions, which is helpful.

But what is less helpful is maybe to leave it there. Why not also explore the truth in the reversal of that statement? How does Buddhism acknowledge a creator?

When I look into that, I find that Buddhism does indeed (also) acknowledge a creator. It is not a wise old man with bushy beard, nor any entity at all, but just this awake void that everything arises within, to and as.

It didn’t happen (only) sometime in the past, but happens right here now, within this timeless present. Creation is here now, allowing all form to always be utterly fresh and new.

(more…)

A lot of what I write here is in a very condensed version, to the point where it probably makes more sense to me (who can fill out the details and flesh it out for myself) than any casual reader… An ox can be boiled down to the point where it is difficult to notice the ox within what remains.

Again, that is how it comes out now, and what I seem to need for myself, so it is OK.

And it does come out in a more fleshed-out form, and tailored to the situation, when someone - on rare occasions -asks me about something related to what I write about here. It helps to (a) be asked (don’t talk about this much otherwise), and (b) to respond to a real-life situation that has a richness to it and particular qualities. The first brings it out in the first place, and the second helps in giving it an angle and fleshing in out.

Draft only:

Whenever there is a belief in a story, it creates a knot.

The belief prevents us from seeing the truth in the reversals of the initial story, it creates a sense of friction or discrepancy between life as it is and as it should be, and it creates a wide range of emotions which all have fear as their kernel (fear of not having what we want, and of having what we don’t want).

All of this forms a metaphorical knot which binds our views into rigid patterns, closes our hearts down to whatever does not conform to what should be (including situations, other people, and ourselves), creates blind emotions and reactivity, and habitual behavior patterns fueled by the beliefs and corresponding emotions.

And when there is a knot, attention tends to go there. Life shows up in ways that do not correspond to the should created by the beliefs, so attention goes to the discrepancy. Or something in us is uneasy about the discrepancy or even potential discrepancy, so attention goes there even in the absence of an obvious (current) clash.

At the pragmatic level, we see that attention going to a discrepancy between what is and should be is very helpful. It helps us figure out how to deal with the situation, either by modifying our strategies for making what is closer to how it should be, or by modifying our stories of what is or what should be. If we take ourselves as an object in the world, dependent on certain circumstances in the wider world, this is very useful. Even if we don’t, it is still useful at a practical human (individual and species) level.

Swinging to the other extreme, we can say that all is God, so if something is seen as not God (not good), then God naturally brings attention there so that too can be seen/felt/loved as God (and good).

Or we can say that there is a discrepancy between what we are and what we take ourselves to be, and something in us knows or intuits this discrepancy, so brings attention to the cause of this discrepancy. We are the field of awareness and its content, absent of an I with an Other. And we take ourselves to be what stories tells us we are, such as an object in the world. So attention goes to those beliefs, with an invitation for us to explore those beliefs more thoroughly… including their effects, and what is already more true for us.

In either case, attention going to knots is similar to a trail of bread crumbs, showing us the way home.

If there is resistance to what is, we’ll get lost in the drama it creates and not notice or being able to follow the trail. If there is a release from (identification with) resistance, there is clarity enough to notice and being led by the trail.

(more…)

When we go out to one end of a polarity, we often meet the other end right there. For instance, by fully allowing an experience, there is a freedom from it right there (through reduced identification with resistance to it, and the beliefs and identities giving rise to the resistance). By going to the end of one end of the allowing-freedom from polarity, we find the other end.

Another example is the polarity of materialism and spirituality. There is a relatively easy co-existence of these two in some areas of the world, such as northern Europe, delegating them simply to different realms of existence. And in other areas, such as the US, these two are often (peculiarly?) seen as opposed to each other.

But there are also other ways to look at their relationship.

And one is to notice how the most materialistic shares many features with the most spiritual, which I see here as the nondual spirituality of Buddhism, Adveita and other traditions.

• Infinite causes and infinite effects. Both see the world of form as infinite causes and infinite effects. Anything happening has infinite causes, going back in time to the beginning of the universe and out in space to the extent of the universe, and also has infinite causes. It is the local expression of the movements of the whole world of form
• No free will. This comes out of the previous one. Everything happening has infinite causes and infinite effects, so there is no room for free will. There is no free will at the level of our human self. As hard-nosed as conventional science is, they usually don’t put it in such crass terms, but the nondual traditions often hold less back here.
• No separate self. This too comes out of the first one. The world of form is a seamless whole, and any appearance of boundaries are only created in thoughts. If we separate out this human self, we see that it is maintained in structure and content by a continuous through flow and exchange with the larger whole. It is relatively easy to recognize at an abstract level, but as long as there is a belief in a separate self, then our experience of it will be of a separate self. The only way to recognize no-self, in immediate experience, is for Ground to notice itself. First, we may find ourselves as the witness, and all form - including what initially appeared as an inside and outside - as a seamless whole. Then, there may be the recognition of even this witness as absent of any separate self.
• No inherent meaning. From a materialistic science, and also existentialistic, view, there is no inherent meaning in the universe or our human lives. And this too is what the nondual traditions report, and what we can find through our own exploration. Here now, there is just awakeness, inherently free from any particular content or form, yet allowing any and all form. And any sense of meaning comes only from a story, appearing within and is overlaid on content and form. There is no inherent meaning anywhere, since awakeness is stainless and independent of content, and also since any sense of meaning only comes from a story. And this freedom from stories and meaning allows for a free play of any sense of meaning, coming from any story. Existence already allows any sense of meaning and any story, and when we find this in ourselves, we are aligned with - and find ourselves as - that. So we are free to play with the stories that makes most sense to us, that has a practical value, fits the data more or less, and also supports - as best as we can tell - the life of ourselves, our community, and earth as a whole.
• (more to come)

One of the reason there is such as easy coexistence, and so many parallels, between these two, is that the spiritual side of it involves a recognition of Ground, of God as awakeness inherently void of any characteristics, so then allowing and being Ground for itself manifesting in the vast variety of forms we know from our own experience. On the one hand, there is a separation of Ground (awake void) and the world of form, and on the other a recognition of the two as both expressions of existence, of God. And both of these allows for the world of form to be exactly as it is, including however it is experienced by us and described by science.

This is what we find at the extreme end of the spirituality side of the polarity (as defined for the purpose of this argument).

If we go a little further in from this end, we find forms of spirituality mainly concerned with the content of awareness, with the world of form, and not much about Ground at all. And since science is mostly or all about the world of form, they find themselves sharing the same turf, so there is more possibility for conflict. One way to resolve this is to delegate areas, and this is what we see quite often. We agree on science dealing with one area of the world of form (what we can see, touch or measure with instruments) and spirituality with another area of the world of form (what we cannot measure, such as souls, afterlife, and so on).

I visited the sci-fi museum in Seattle this weekend, and was reminded of how sci-fi is an especially fertile ground for examples of and analogies to what is explored in psychology and spirituality. There are probably books out there exploring that theme, and if there isn’t, it is waiting to happen.

Some topics and examples that come to mind…

• Who am I? The Tuvix episode of Star Trek Voyager is especially interesting here. Two individuals, Tuvok and Neelix, are combined into one in a transporter accident. So what is happening here? What is individuality? If I am first this human self, and then a different human self, what happened to the first one? Who is here now? If we take ourselves to be content of awareness in general, and this human self in particular, it becomes an almost impossible conundrum. But if we find ourselves as awareness, as this awake void, which is both the seeing and the seen, both the awareness of form and the forms themselves, the questions fall away. The content of awareness is always in flux anyway, so this is no different. First, one particular human self arises in awareness along with everything else, then another human self. And that is how it already is anyway. Whatever arises is always new, different, fresh. And there is no inherent I with an Other in there anywhere.
• Sentience. What is the difference between advanced robots or holograms and humans? Are they alive? Conscious? Sentient? Again, if we take ourselves to be content of awareness, the question is almost impossible to answer to our satisfaction (which is why it is such fertile ground for so many stories). But if we realize we are awareness, we realize that there isn’t really such a difference. There is awake awareness and then phenomena arising within, to and as this awareness, and these phenomena may be a human self or a robot or a hologram or a cloud or whatever else. In any case, there is no inherent separate self in any of it. In that sense, it is all equal. Of course, this doesn’t quite solve the question at a conventional level, because here, there is still a difference between a biological lifeform, robots and holograms. The question helps us find ourselves as awareness and all phenomena as awareness itself, and it also leaves a great deal of room for different views on a conventional level.
• Time travel. It is the nature of our thoughts to move freely between (what appears as) past, future, and present, so why shouldn’t we be able to do so physically as well? But when we look more closely at what is happening, we see that any thought is about the past (thoughts about what appears as the present always lags a little behind perception, and thoughts about the future have only the past as their source.) And we also see that thoughts, along with all other content of awareness, arises here and now, within this timeless present. All there is, is this awake timeless present within which all phenomena arises, always new, fresh and different, including any thoughts about past, future and present. The past and future exists only within a thought. So we see that time travel is already happening, whenever attention goes to the content of a thought. We see that the past and future only appears in the content of thoughts, and these thoughts arise within this timeless present. And seeing this, the desire and any perceived need for time travel falls away, and the whole idea of time travel is seen as only that, an idea. The appearance of possibility of time travel itself can only arise when we believe in thoughts, making past and future appear substantial and real.
• Parallel worlds. If we pay attention, we notice that there are innumerable parallel worlds right here, and as attention goes into one after another, we live in a succession of them. There is what is alive in immediate perception, here and now. And mimicking these sense fields (vision, sound, sensations, taste, smell) our thoughts create a wide range of worlds parallel to perceptions. Sometimes, when attention is wrapped up in thought, we are absorbed into these parallel worlds, while the world of perceptions goes on on its own. Other times, we are aware of both, one besides the other. And sometimes, attention goes to what is alive in immediate perceptions, and a thought is recognized as just a thought.
• False memories. False memories, and various degrees of false identity based on those memories, is a common theme in science fiction, from Star Trek to the Matrix to Blade Runner. When we look here now, we see that any memory and any identity is just a thought arising here and now. That is all it is. Ephemeral, insubstantial, transparent, arising within this awake timeless now. Different thoughts give rise to different memories and identities. It is always changing anyway, whether subtly or dramatically. It is a precarious situation. But in the midst of thoughts and identities changing, something does not change. What is that? We may find that there is an awakeness here that does not change, even as its content changes. And that this content, whatever arises here now, is this awakeness itself. Finding ourselves as this awakeness gives a freedom to allowing content to change, to live its own life, on its own schedule, as it does anyway.
• Appearance of solidity. The holodeck in Star Trek (I have watched mostly ST lately!) is an example of how a very vivid reality can be created by something as insubstantial as photons and force fields. In the same way, we take something as insubstantial and ephemeral as sensations, sights, sounds, tastes/smells, and thoughts, and create a very vivid and apparently substantial reality for ourselves. But as soon as we notice this, and how the gestalts are created by conglomerates of perception and thoughts, it again is revealed as insubstantial and ephemeral. The matrix, in The Matrix, is another example of how the rules change when we see it for what it is, and get intimately familiar with the mechanisms of samsara. There is a freedom from being blindly caught up in the gestalts and the appearances created by the gestalts.
• Center of gravity. Some stories exemplify the difference between having the center of gravity in our human self, or at the soul level or Ground. What we find ourselves as, in immediate awareness and outside of stories, determines how we experience and filter what is. For instance, the Star Trek TOS episode Errand of Mercy shows the difference between finding oneself as this human self (fear, contraction, drama, struggle) and as soul (as alive timeless presence, and absence of or greatly reduced fear, drama, struggle). It is quite caricatured, but still gets the basic difference across.
• Processing. A part of the path is processing of unresolved issues and memories. They surface, and we have a chance of relating to them in another way, allowing them to resolve. In Tarkovsky’s Solaris, an ocean planet brings to life whatever (or whomever) we have an unresolved relationship with, inviting us to resolve it. If we identify with resistance, as many in the movie do, there is drama and despair. But we can also take it as an opportunity to resolve the relationship, as the main character does. In real life, this process includes being with whatever emotions comes up, inquiries into the beliefs around the situation, and also heal and resolve our relationships in daily life.
• Duality. In The Matrix, Neo and Agent Smith are reversals of each other, and in their final encounter, annihilate each other. This is also what happens when we explore beliefs. First, a story seems true and good and its reversals appear false or not-so-good. Then, when they are more thoroughly investigated and wrestled with, we see the truth in the reversal and both as only relative truths, so the whole appearance of a split and duality falls away. And this, as in the Matrix, allows the world to start anew, this time without (or even with) a belief in stories. The experience is of a struggle (sometimes), and then a falling away of duality, although all that really happens is that we see what is already more true for us. We see the stories as just stories, each with their own limited, practical and relative truth, and what is as inherently free from both, although available to be filtered through either or both.
• Big Mind. Many sci-fi movies is an invitation to shift into Big Mind… for instance through the cosmic scope of the stories (cosmos as a stage which includes and goes beyond all polarities), and the sheer intensity of what is happening. For me, Contact is a movie which does this, through its opening into a larger whole far beyond what we are normally familiar with.
• Awakenings. Some sci-fi stories are about awakenings. We take life as it appears to us as real, and do not question it. And then something happens which reveals it differently from the way it appeared to us, and opens up a larger and different world to us. Matrix is one example, the Truman Show another.
• Meditation. The Vulcan meditation is an example of the art of resistance, and this has a tendency to break down as many Star Trek stories show. “Real” meditation is a disidentification with content of awareness, including resistance, so there is an allowing of what is. This allows what is to reveal itself without the filter of (identified with) resistance, including the stream of quiet bliss that seems inherent in awareness and experiencing, and emotions as a sweet fullness. And it allows Ground to more easily notice itself, since it is less clouded up by the dust kicked up by resistance.

Then the ones shared by any stories, sci-fi or not…

• Mirror. Whatever we see in the wider world, including in any story, is a mirror of what is right here, in several ways. The qualities we see in the wider world are qualities we recognize because they are right here, in this human self. What is, as it appears to us, is filtered through our stories about it, so what we see out there (our stories about the world) is a mirror of our own stories. And as Big Mind, what arises is this I without an Other.
• Shadow. A subarea of the wider world as a mirror is the shadow. We take stories as true, so their reversals are in the shadow. And we identify with particular identities (formed by beliefs), and these too have shadows. Whatever arises that trigger aversion and dislike in us tends to point to our shadow, and sci-fi stories are not short on these. Alien is a good example here, where the adversary is a completely dehumanized monster. Watching these movies is a good opportunity to see what happens when our shadow is triggered, how it tends to lead to dehumanization of the shadow object, an opportunity to find in ourselves what we see out there, and when empathy comes up through recognition, also explore how we would have dealt with the situation in the movie from this new space. It may even be that our actions would be quite similar, but our experience of it quite different (empathy rather than fear and reactiveness).

It often sounds obscure when folks (including myself) talk about Ground awakening, or void awake to itself, or awake void and form.

It is really very simple and can also be talked about in a simpler way. One that it is also easier to relate to.

The question is: are we the content of awareness or awareness itself? And, are those really two?

When we discover that content of awareness always comes and goes, we have a chance to notice that which does not come and go, which is awareness itself.

And when we notice awareness itself, we also notice that it is inherently insubstantial, it is inherently free from any content, it is inherently empty or void. It is also inherently free from a separate self, an I with an Other.

And now when we look at content of awareness again, we see that this content too is insubstantial, empty and void. The content of awareness is nothing other than awareness itself, taking the temporary appearances of form, and in both cases insubstantial and empty.

So here it is, the awake emptiness and form. Awareness inherently free from any particular content and allowing any content, and the play of awake emptiness as temporary form.

And as awareness is inherently free from an I with an Other, this goes for form too since it is nothing other than this awareness. This human self, along with the rest of the content of awareness, lives its own life, on its own schedule. It all is just happening. There is lots of doing, but no doer.

It is nothing particularly obscure or difficult about it. It only takes some noticing and getting used to.

Our whole body-mind system organized within the context of taking oneself to be the content of awareness. Now it needs to reorganize within this new context of awake void noticing itself, inherently free from an I with an Other. And his noticing can be more or less clear and can come and go for a while.

When there is an identification with content of awareness, with stories and their objects such as this human self, then void is not something that looks particular attractive. I am something, an object in the world, and void means an absence of that. It means death.

And this is exactly what keeps the game playing, which is a good thing. It is how it is set up. The awake void takes itself as its own content, the forms it temporarily take, so the whole drama of I and Other is created and plays itself out. It is nothing if not entertaining.

But it also seems a little too real sometimes. A little too substantial, too much about life and death. So here, the urge to find a resolution to the drama comes up.

The resolution is simple. It is for the void to awaken to itself, to notice itself. And yet, that is exactly what “I”, if I take myself as content, fears the most and wants the least.

So then there is the drama of waking up. The struggle of awake void noticing itself through the clouds of beliefs in stories. The struggle with fear and resistance coming up in leaving identifications with stories and some of their objects behind. The drama between wanting to see what is already more true for us, and yet holding onto and retreating into familiar beliefs.

Yet, when it happens, when void notices itself, either out of the blue or following a good deal of practice, there is just ease. The void washes away any content, including identifications with stories. And when content comes back, it is noticed as nothing other than the awake void itself. The content of the awake void is the awake void itself. Said another way, the content of awareness - which is awake void - is awareness itself.

This is the magic of the void. It is absent of any content. So when it notices itself as void, and form comes back in, form itself is noticed as void. Specifically, it is noticed as absent of any separate self, any I with an Other, so there is also an absence of identification with stories and any other content of awareness.

It all arises on its own, in its own time, out of and as void itself. Always and already absent of an I with an Other. Even the sense of a separate self, and the drama that came out of it, was always and already absent of any separate self. Even that just happened, on its own, on its own time, as the play of awake void itself.

Lack of precision is one of those things that still sometimes bugs me, and so shows me a belief…

A belief that precision is somehow superior to lack of precision, a corresponding identity as someone who is, or rather wants to be, precise, and being caught up in struggle with the shadow of the belief (the truth in its reversals) and of the identity (me as imprecise).

In the world of the bodywork I am doing, there is a great deal of opportunity to explore this…! Imprecision seems to abound, including from the senior instructors.

And of course, I see that it comes from them setting a ceiling at the soul level, not including the Ground. And I also see some of the gifts in it, including a deepening familiarity with the territory on this side of the boundary they set up that way.

One of the ways they talk which seems imprecise is how they use the word eternal, and even the word “permanent”.

When void is awake to itself, even to a certain extent, what is is revealed as arising within and as this timeless now. That whatever arises, arises within and as this timeless present is alive in immediate awareness. It is revealed as the play of the timeless now, always fresh, new and different.

The void is void, so also void of space and time. So when this awake void arises as form, those forms are also timeless and spaceless, although can certainly appear as time and space through an overlay of the story of time and space.

Eternity is something very different. It comes from a story, and it comes from within the perspective (and experience) of space and time. There is space and time, and something lasts throughout it all, so is eternal. Using the word eternal reflects a(n unquestioned) belief in the stories of space and time, and also reinforces that belief. It comes from and props up that particular filter. Which is fine of course, but gets a little weird if taken as the absolute and final.

The word permanent is even worse…! It too obviously comes from within the belief in the stories of space and time, of not seeing beyond that filter. But it also implies something substantial, something in the world of form, a content of awareness, which lasts. And by exploring what happens with content of awareness, even in a superficial way, it is pretty clear that inherent in content is change. Content is change. No matter whether it is at a physical level, thought level, or soul level (e.g. alive presence).

So having gotten this out at this level, it is time to inquire into my own beliefs around this! Something is triggered by what I see as imprecision, so there is clearly a clutching at a particular view there. My own reactions - of emotional reactivity (belly), a closed heart (heart) and rigid views (head) - are the signposts saying “blind belief”, nudging me to inquiry and a seeing what is already more true for me than this initial belief saying that people should be precise, that being precise is superior, and so on.

If I resist it, I end up fighting ghosts, and only fueling the patterns of rigidity of views, closed heart, reactive emotions, and even beating myself up for being caught up in it.

If I follow the invitation, and inquire into it with some degree of sincerity, it allows me to see what is already more true for me, which opens for the wide open field beyond beliefs… which is always and already there, only temporarily covered up by the drama and struggle created by beliefs.

I find three different ways space & time can appear…

First, when there is a belief in stories, an appearance of I and other, and I as a segment of what is, specifically an object in the world. As an object in the world, time and space seems very real, and I am at the mercy of time as space. Time and space has a life-and-death importance to me, and appear very substantial and real. I take myself as something within time and space, so time and space has to look very real to me.

Then, there may still be a belief in a separate self, an I with an Other, although now, the I is placed on the witness, seeing itself. Here, all form appears as a fluid seamless whole, beyond and including this human self and the wider world, and the boundary between the two is revealed as just appearing because of a story, of taking “I” to be this human self. In this case, I - as pure seeing, is timeless and spaceless, and something that time and space appear to and within.

Finally, when there is a Ground awakening, when void awakens to itself, and itself as awake void and form, the sense of an I with an Other falls away. It is only this awake void, free from time and space, arising as fresh, new, fluid form. Time and space is revealed as appearing when what is is filtered through stories about past, future, present and continuity.

Time and space arises within, to and as awake void and form, when what is is filtered through these stories.

It may be worth mentioning how everything arising is revealed as timeless and spaceless here. In short, void is absence of anything, so also absent of time and space. And when form is recognized as nothing other than a temporary form aspect of this awake void, form is also recognized as absent of time and space. It happens within and as this timeless and spaceless now.

The hills over there, and this hand right here, are both awake void, so no distance and no separation is involved. It is all the always fluid form aspect of awake void. At the same time, it is possible to create an overlay of space so this human self can talk about here and there, close and far, feet and miles, and function in the world.

And with time, everything happens as this timeless now, but also here, it is possible to create an overlay of time so this human self can talk about yesterday and tomorrow, and function in the world.

When I happen to mention the centaur way of experiencing oneself to people, I notice that not everyone can match it with what is alive in their own experience. Which in turn makes me interested in exploring it further for myself.

Some things that comes up…

• It is an alive experience of the wholeness of the human self, beyond and embracing body & psyche. It is its own gestalt, which happens to filter into body and mind if there is that story added onto it.
• The experience of my human self as a whole, beyond and embracing body-mind, has different flavors and can be in the foreground or background. Most of the time, it is more of a background experience, and sometimes, for instance in nature or when I do both body-oriented practices and meditation for a few days, it comes more into the foreground.
• It comes from, and deepens, an alignment within the whole of the human self. Over time, and when present, it seems to resolve into a deepening alignment within this whole, which brings a sense of less internal struggle, and also less struggle with the wider world.
• There is a parallel noticing of an already existing whole and a reorganization of this whole. I notice that this human self already and always is a whole, along with the wider world. And before this noticing there may be a reorganization and alignment within the whole of my human self which allows me to notice this, and this reorganization and alignment continues and deepens within that noticing.
• This all goes along with a change in identifications and beliefs. Before and after, there is a shift in identification with narrow identities that separate me from others, to more wider and inclusive identities where I see myself as in the same boat as others. I find myself as more deeply and universally human.
• There is a change in projections in general, and the shadow in particular, where I more easily see in others what I know from myself, and recognize in myself what I see in others.
• The immediate experience of the human self as a whole allows for a noticing of the wider whole in the same way. This human self is already and always a whole, and the wider world is the same. And this in turn allows for a sense of less or no separation, and of belonging to the larger whole.
• This gives me glimpses of the larger whole beyond and including this human self and the wider world. And this sets the stage for shifts into the witness, into pure seeing, where all form is revealed as one seamless whole. And of shifts into nature and deity-mysticism experiences, of all there is as made of one fabric, as divine, consciousness, God itself. Which in turn can lead to a shift into realized selflessness. Into the Ground - the void - awakening to itself, and then to itself as awake void and form, including as inherently absent of any I with an Other. (Although it certainly does not have to be a nicely organized progression as described here.)

I want to explore how to reformulate the usual ways of talking about the bodywork I am doing, as the standard terminology does not quite work for me… how can I talk about it in a way that is close to the recommended way, yet also true for me?

(more…)