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…)

One way of looking at the three centers, which fits nicely in with Buddhism and other traditions, is through Ground awakening and skillful means.

The head center awakening, when it is full, is Ground awakening. Awake void awaking to itself, as awake void and form, inherently absent of any I with an Other.

And the heart and belly awakenings, the loving and felt-sense of all as Spirit, is part of the skillful means, how this Ground awakening is expressed in the world through this particular human self.

Before head center awakening, the heart and belly awakenings makes the shift into Ground awakening a little more likely, and also makes it easier to be who we take ourselves to be. After a Ground awakening, they become part of the skillful means in how it is expressed in the world. In either case, it is part of the unfolding evolution of the form aspect of God.

Over the last few weeks, I have come across several references to Buddhism and The Work, and other similar approaches, as leading to nihilism… It is obviously coming from people who haven’t tried it out for themselves, and project something onto it, but it can still be useful to look at.

The easiest way to talk about it is through the filter of the absolute and relative…

From the absolute, from void awake to itself, no stories are real… they have only limited and temporary truth to them, their reversals each also have truth to them, and altogether they reveal the inherent neutrality of any situation. It is all God, God’s will, the play and appearances of God. No matter how it appears, it is just appearances temporarily covering up God’s play. The world of form, the content of awareness, is the infinitely varied faces of God.

If this becomes a belief, a story taken as true, it can look pretty weird… it can easily take the form of nihilism, apathy, anti-social behavior, lack of empathy, reckless disregard for social norms and rules, and so on, dependent on what else is going on in the personality.

But if it is realized, if void is awake to itself, it is very different… here, it is expressed through natural empathy and compassion, through a deepening and maturing of the human self it is expressed through. It is expressed in a deeply human way… It looks like clarity, wisdom, compassion and wholehearted engagement in the world. It looks like a life lived for the benefit of the larger whole, in a deeply (and deepening) mature and skillful way.

It is the void playing the game through a human self, knowing it is a game, and acting from the compassion, wisdom and engagement that naturally comes up in this human self when it functions in the context of void awake to itself.

And this difference between belief and realization is why, on the relative level, all nondual traditions emphasize ethics and norms… before the void awakens to itself, live your life in an honest and sincere way, in a way that does as little harm to others and the larger whole as possible, and in a way that supports life as much as possible. These may all be the temporary appearances of the awake void, but this path is one that leads to the void to be awake to itself, and the suffering is real in that it is experienced as real… so why not reduce it as much as possible.

The absolute is free from good and evil (or bad), but at the relative everyday level, it is a useful distinction… live your life in a way that minimizes suffering and optimizes well-being and joy for yourself and others, including future generations.

I have done two retreats/trainings over the last few weeks, and have a deep appreciation for both groups and their approaches. At the same time, both groups have a clear goal focus, which it helps me see even more clearly how my path is one of exploration, not of seeking any particular goal. My passion is to explore the terrain, to get familiar with the evolving landscape of what is.

One group emphasizes realized selflessness (Ground awakening), and as that is one part of the landscape, and I only have limited experience with that (off and on), I want to go there. The other group emphasizes “being present” (or rather, just noticing that there is never anything else), and since that is one part of the landscape, I explore that as well. But it does not mean that Ground awakening is inherently better than a sense of separate I, or “being present” is somehow inherently better than being absorbed into the content of thoughts.

It is all part of the landscape… all part of God’s exploration of itself as void and evolving form, all God’s will, all God’s play. It is all God manifesting, exploring and experiencing itself, in evolving and infinitely varied ways. And that is something that is loved, felt and seen in this particular path, of this human self.

There are also many benefits to seeing it all as an exploration. Mainly, there is less of a tendency to get caught up in the split of seeker-sought, which tends to reinforce the sense of I and Other, where what is sought is always over the horizon, and where it is easy to overlook that what we are seeking may already be right here. When it is an exploration, we are free to explore any area of the terrain with less drama and less of a split.

(The benefit of goal orientation can be included in the exploration process, although within this context, they provide a general direction, and maybe at times temporary goals lightly held.)

Another aspect of this exploration is recording it, getting it out, so that there is less or no need to try to remember anything or hold onto any maps, frameworks or temporary insights. They are all recorded, so there is a freedom to let go of them and move on to something else. So in one sense, these writings are recordings of a journey, and in another sense, they are discarded reflections of what at one point was alive in immediate awareness. Life has already and always moved on.

This is something that is (I assume) clear to folks who have done some meditation practice, and (apparently) can be confusing to those outside looking in.

I just read an anthology of essays by and interviews with the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss, where an interviewer refer to Zen as a philosophy of no-doing, which he (strangely enough) took to mean never getting involved in any sort of social action, and also watched a movie involving the French resistance, and the combination of the two brought it up.

When there is a reference to allowing in a meditation context, it means allowing experience… not resisting experience (including the resistance itself!) This is very different from allowing and not resisting circumstances in the world, such as social injustice and violence against living beings.

The two go perfectly well together. The Germans invade France, maybe kill or torture friends and family, and great sadness and anger may come up, and I can fully allow those experiences. To resist these experiences creates drama and suffering. To not resist them allows for clarity and a sense of ease, even in the midst of the intensity of the experiences and the situation.

What arises may also involve active resistance to the situation that is going on, including actively resisting the German invasion in different ways. In fact, not resisting experience is likely to allow strong empathy to emerge, within more clarity and less drama, which in turn translates to more effective actions in the world.

So there is a big difference between resistance to experience, which only creates suffering for myself, and active resistance to and engagement with circumstances, which may arise from compassion and clarity.

At another level, the retreat helped clarify three reasons of practice for me…

• Awakening to what we are… the void awakening to itself, as wakeful, as form, inherently absent of any separate self.
• Making it easier to be who we take ourself to be, allowing for some release from suffering, an opening for appreciation for life as it is, and so on.
• Assisting development and evolution… the development of this individual at human and soul levels, as part of the evolution of the larger world of form.

The first is at the absolute level, the absolute awakening to itself even while still functionally connected with a human self.

The second is at the relative level, offering some (apparent) benefits of the practice even in those cases where there is not (yet) a full awakening of Big Mind.

And the third is also at the relative, form, level, allowing for a the human self to heal, mature and deepen into the evolving fullness of itself, and the soul level to deepen into its own evolving fullness. (I like to leave out the conscious evolution part as it is a great hook for inflation…!)

(more…)

When Ground awakens to itself, and is still functionally connected with a particular human being, its expression is flavored by that human being… its personality, its likes and dislikes, its inclinations, its history.

So when Ground awakened through U. G. Krishnamurti, it came to be expressed in a very clear and uncompromising way. So uncompromising that, as far as I know, he didn’t really give people many pointers for how to invite that awakening for themselves, or how to notice that Ground is always and already there. He stayed close to the absolute in how he expressed it, and didn’t exactly go out of his way to meet people where they are.

Byron Katie has the same uncompromising quality, never straying far from the absolute when she talks, but she also knows how to meet people where they are, and she has a very simple practice to offer, one that also meets people exactly where they are.

And then at the other end of the scale is, for instance, Tibetan Buddhism with its wealth of approaches and practices, all within one consistent and comprehensive framework. It always has the absolute as its ground and framework, yet also has developed a plethora of practices and ways of talking that meets people where they are, in terms of their understanding and familiarity with the terrain, almost no matter where that may be. If you want a taste of Ground, they have ways to invite that in. If you want to ease your suffering, they have tools for that. If you want a second person worship more than meeting the Buddha as first person, yes, that is also OK (that is also valid and helpful in its own way).

Each of these are helpful in different ways, and each one meets different people right where they are. For some, U. G. Krishnamurti is the guy, for others The Work, and for some, a selection of the practices within Tibetan Buddhism.

Vince Horn has a good comment at Buddhist Geeks, under an interview about the Brad Warner vs. Big Mind controversy.

[...] Even the Buddha recognized that people could progress through the path in at least 4 different ways:
1) slow progress that is very difficult (probably what Brad is describing)
2) slow progress that is pleasant
3) fast progress that is very difficult
4) fast progress that is easy

Fast progress, and I’m talking extraordinarily fast, does happen. I’ve seen it happen for others, have heard of it happening, and have at times experienced it happening. My opinion is that as practitioners, no matter what point in the path we are, we need to hold this open as a possibility and respect and appreciate it when it happens. I suspect that not doing so only creates a disempowering air around enlightenment, and may actually prevent people (if they buy that one-sided perspective) from deepening in insight. [...]

It also seems that however it happens, it evens out in the end… in two ways.

When Ground awakens to itself, that’s it… and there is also the realization that it all, the whole human drama and drama of awakening, was no other than emptiness dancing… an appearance of a drama unfolding over time, all happening as no other than this awake emptiness, this timeless now.

And also, the long and/or difficult process has its own rewards. It gives a different depth and richness of experience for this human self, which can be very valuable in aiding others through the process.

(more…)

When I read Ordinary Extraordinary’s excellent post on emptiness, I was reminded of how well reversals fit in with the Buddhist Middle Way. They both reflect the same insight, so it is not surprising: any story is only a relative truth, and each of its reversals have truths to it as well. And, when they all cancel each other out, we can taste the inherent neutrality of any situation… emptiness dancing, God’s will, God expressing, exploring and experiencing itself.

There is a self: Yes. (a) There is indeed the appearance of an individual human self and soul, as a holon in a much larger holarcy. Through an overlay of stories, we can differentiate within the world of form, split it up freely in any size and shape, and individuals are one of the things we can differentiate out. And (b) there is a Self… as Big Mind, Brahman, Tao… The Self absent of an Other, not any more or less identified with any aspect of the field of awake emptiness and form.

There is no self: Yes. (a1) Within the seamless world of form, there is no separate self. We can differentiate out an individual human self and soul within this seamless world, but there are no absolute boundaries there. Any boundaries come from stories alone. And (a2) all forms are no other than the brilliantly clear and awake emptiness itself, which is inherently absent of any separate self… no boundaries, no beginning, no end, timeless, spaceless, allowing any and all forms… And finally, (b) there is no Self. Any self requires an Other, an in the absence of an Other there is no Self either.

There is an I: Yes. (a) When there is an identification with one region of form, the sense of I is placed there, making the rest of the world of form (and the rest of Existence) appear as Other. This creates the appearance of a separate I. (b) There is an I, as the awake emptiness and form itself, as Big Mind, Brahman, Tao… This is the I without an Other. It is the same I as under (a), but now clearly realized to have no Other, and not more or less identified with any aspect of the field (of awake emptiness and form) than any other.

There is no I: Yes. (a) There is no separate I anywhere, no I with an Other. Only the appearance of it, when there is a belief in the story of a separate I (self), and the field is split into the appearance of I and Other. (b) There is no I even as the I without an Other, because without an Other, no I either. There is only what is… the field of awake emptiness and form, already and inherently absent of any center and any separate self or I.

None of these stories are absolutely true, yet they are all relative truths… each with a grain of truth in them. Together, they fill out the picture within the realm of stories, and they also point to that which is inherently free from (and prior to) stories.

Integral Options Cafe’s speedlinking for yesterday linked to a post on emptiness. Before I read it, here is what comes up for me on the topic.

Emptiness (shunyata) can be used in several different, although relatively closely related, ways…

• As the Ground, the void everything arises from, within, and as.
• As awake emptiness and form, Big Mind… which is emptiness dancing as form
• As what is being inherently empty of any separate self, anywhere. It is just one field of awake emptiness and form, absent of any separate self… there is doing, but no doer.
  1. It is empty of separate self because it is emptiness dancing. (The void is just the void, no separate self there, not even when form is included).
  2. And it is empty of any separate self even within form. The world of form is a seamless whole. Everything happening has infinite causes and infinite effects. It is the local manifestations of the movements of the whole.
• And finally, as absent of beliefs. Empty of believing in the stories of I and a particular identity. Empty of taking relative truths (stories, thoughts, maps, frameworks) as absolute.

I am sure there are other forms of emptiness here, but these seem to be the main ones.

And the funny thing is that these are not intellectual fabrications. It is not something thought out (although it can be thought out, and it can make sense, to some extent, within the realm of thought).

It not only comes from what is alive in immediate experience, but what is alive in immediate experience for all of us… right here now. If we look, investigate for ourselves… using pointers from the Big Mind process, headless experiments, or other forms of inquiry.

(more…)

This is getting choppy, but that’s ok.

Here is yet another, slightly wider, framework for many of the popular evolutionary views today (and any other story).

In an absolute sense, it is all just stories. Form itself is a thin surface on the vastness of awake emptiness, and stories just a way of interpreting the world of form.

In a relative sense, each story has a grain of truth to them, and all their reversals do as well (together revealing the inherent neutrality of the situation).

If we take a story as an absolute truth, we set ourselves up for misery. If we take it as only a relative truth, of temporary, limited and purely utilitarian value, it can be very useful in our human life. But that is about it.

The value of evolutionary stories, whether from conventional science or from integral frameworks or new age, is that it sets our life - and our daily experiences - in a wider context within form. Personally, I find that the insights from biological evolution can be very helpful as a context for much in my daily life… it sets my emotions, reactions, impulses and much more into a far wider context. The integral evolutionary frameworks can be helpful in understanding where people are at, and where we personally came from and may be going. The Universe Story can give people a real sense of belonging to the larger whole, and of meaning.

And even the more new agey views, which rings of wishful thinking and triggered the initial post on this topic, may have value I suppose. It may give people temporary comfort (although tinged with stress). It may have some value as a self-fulfilling prophesy (probably in a very limited way). It may have entertainment value. There may be a grain of truth in it, and encourage some people to explore it in a more grounded and serious way. The inherent stress in believing it may help people question beliefs in general. And I am sure there are more gifts in it as well.

In a Ground awakening, awakening to ourselves as emptiness, there is complete freedom to allow the play of any and all forms. And this also includes a complete freedom to temporarily misidentify with, and take itself as, one or some of these forms.

The irony is that when there is misidentification, there is also a desire to escape the suffering, which is ultimately a desire to wake up to what we already are. And when what we already are awakens to itself, there is a complete freedom to allow even misidentification, to allow the cycle to start all over again.

Inherent in the awakening is the allowing of misidentification over there, in other human selves and sentient beings. There is the allowing of the process of the world of form to take its course, wherever it may go, including misidentification here.

After all, it is all the play of emptiness.

That is how it looks from the emptiness side.

The form side: a natural impulse to relieve suffering, and also appreciating the gifts of suffering

From the form side, it is a little different. There is still the freedom from taking any story as absolute, as anything else as a relative truth with all its reversals having relative truths as well.

Yet, there is also compassion coming up when there is suffering, anywhere. And there is acting to relieve this suffering, either in a temporary way or in a more complete way through aiding awakening.

So within the context of a complete freedom to allow it all, there is also the natural and effortless impulse to relieve suffering. And within the context of wanting to relieve suffering, there is also the appreciation of the richness and explorations that happens in the midst of suffering and delusion.

There is nothing wrong with temporary misidentification, delusion, and even suffering. That too is the play of emptiness, or put in another way, it is God manifesting, exploring and experiencing itself.

I am often struck by the simplicity of awakening. And if it is an awakening to what we already and always are, why shouldn’t it be simple? That doesn’t mean that it easy, though. Often, it seems impossible and confusing, until it happens and it is revealed as utterly simple. In some ways, it was the complexity we added to it that held the temporary misidentification in place.

There are many ways of talking about it, and none are really that accurate. As with anything put into words, it becomes a relative truth, limited and with all its reversals true as well.

One is to say that what is awakens to itself.

Another, as awake emptiness awakening to itself, and to form as no other than itself.

Or as awakeness awakening to itself, no longer identifying with any of its content… with sensations, thoughts, this human self, the soul level, or anything else that is content of awakeness. And then realizing that it is all one field, all awake emptiness and form inherently absent of any separate self anywhere.

Or as the void awakening to itself as void, absent of everything… of form, substance, human self, soul, luminosity, any thing-ness, any thing separate from any other thing. And then realizing that all content is no other than this void, emptiness dancing, still absent of any separate self.

Or as the Ground of awake emptiness awakening to itself. The no-thing which allows all things, already and always. The Ground which allows any and all content, utterly independent of its particulars.

And even if it remains just a map, or a memory of a glimpse, or a vague intuition, this map can be helpful. It can help us see that content is not it, no matter how amazing and beautiful it is. Whatever changes, whatever comes and goes, is not it. What remains, is. The no-thing that remains, utterly free from yet allowing any thing, any content, any experience.

I have had the pleasure of spending some time with Deep Surface lately, including at the Center for Sacred Sciences this morning, and he asked Joel a really good question.. one that I am sure comes up for most of us sooner or later, and probably over and over in slightly new ways.

(Paraphrased:) There is an apparently separate consciousness here, and there also seems to be apparently separate consciousnesses out there, in other people and animals. What is the relationship between all of these? Is it one, many? If it is one, why does it appear as many?

Joel asked us how many consciousnesses we each have direct experience with, and the answer for all of us was one. He then also helped clarify the difference between awareness itself and its content, the seeing and the seen… the content is many and always changing… different sights, sensations, thoughts, subpersonalities and so on. But the seeing is always one, always the same.

This helped clarify it for me as well, and here is one way to talk about it:

A field of awake emptiness

The Ground of all form is awake emptiness, appearing as a field of awake emptiness throughout space.

Over here, the content of this awake emptiness is from this individual. Over there, from that individual. Over there again, from another individual.

Emptiness is always the same. Simply emptiness. Yet its content is always different. It is different here, over time. And it is different at different points in space, with content arising from different individuals (including all sentient beings.)

So the awake emptiness is one, yet its content is many. And this is also why it can be awake to itself over there, in that individual, and not here, in this individual, and so on. In one individual, it takes itself to be that content, that individual. In another, it has awakened to itself as awake emptiness, recognizing the whole field as nothing other than the same awake emptiness.

One, and many (and neither)

So is it one or many? As usual for me, the answer seems to be “yes.”

It is one, in that in our own experience, there is only one. And it is one in that it is the same awake emptiness everywhere (emptiness is emptiness.)

Yet, its contents is of course many, and it appears separate until it awakens to itself as awake emptiness, recognizing the whole field as nothing other than this awake emptiness.

And also, it is such an unusual situation, at least for our minds to grasp, so we cannot really say it is one or many. It is somewhere in between, something a little different, not quite either.

A comment left some days ago made me explore in what ways there is an absence of I in awakening.

One, and the most obvious one, is that there is an absence of I in content.

When we look of content of awareness, we find sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations and thoughts. This human self and its surroundings is arising.

And we often take a portion of this content as who we are. I am this human being, or maybe even really some portions of this human being, the ones that correspond with an identity I have made for myself. I am this human being, and I am also smart more than stupid, nice more than obnoxious, right more than wrong, and so on.

In our own experience, there is an I in this content, placed on parts of this human self.

But at some point, we start to realize that all of this has really an inherent absence of I.

And we can discover that in maybe three general ways.

One way is to find ourselves as seeing itself, as pure awareness, the witness. I am the seeing and the seen is released from having an I in it. This can happen in meditation, as a result of yoga or shaktipat, or spontaneously… We find ourselves absorbed into pure seeing, realizing that the world of form is inherently absent of an I.

Another is to find ourselves as headless, as Big Mind, as awake emptiness and form, and again realize that there is no I in any parts of all of this. Anything arising is one field of seeing-seen, form as no other than awake emptiness itself, and this field has no center of an “I”. If there is an “I” here at all, it is equally distributed throughout the field.

And a third, closely related to the two other, is to inquire into the world of form itself. I notice sounds, sights, smells, tastes, sensations and thoughts all come and go, live their own life. Can I be any of these? I do not seem to come and go. Following this leads us into finding ourselves as seeing itself, and then as Big Mind.

This form of inquiry also helps us see more clearly how a sense of an I within this is created. How thoughts are taken as offering absolute truths, are associated with particular sensations, and together serve as an anchor for a sense of a separate I. When this is seen, and especially as there is more familiarity with this territory, the gestalt falls apart into its components. Where there used to be a definite sense of I, there are just thoughts and sensations arising in space.

If there is no I in the content of awareness, is there an I anywhere?

Well, for a while it may appear as if there is an I in awareness itself, as opposed to in content. I am seeing, not the seen. But then that falls away as well.

The content of awareness is not different from awareness itself. It is all awake emptiness and form, with form as no other than awake emptiness itself. There is just a field of awake emptiness and form, absent of a separate I in any of its parts. Just a field of seeing-seen, and even saying that gives an appearance of a split that is not there.

The field is absent of a separate I in any of its parts. If there is an I anywhere, it is the one I which is everywhere and nowhere in particular. The one I distributed equally throughout the field. The I without an Other.

I realize this could have been more clear in some of the previous posts…

Views all have their reversals, and they all have limited validity and a grain of truth in them. They are all relative truths.

When a view is believed in, taken as an absolute truth, that is when it creates shadows. I am this, not that. This is true, not that. I am right, you are not.

And a view is any abstraction. Any thought, image, identity, ideology, framework, map. Anything that helps us navigate in the world. Anything that is really a question, but can be taken as a statement. Anything that, when believed in, we use to box ourselves and Existence in with, saying that it is this way, and not that. Anything that, when believed in, makes it appear that we know how things not only are, but how they should be.

Seen as just innocent questions and relative truths, they are immensely useful in helping us orient and navigate in the world. Taken as statements and absolutes, we try to box the world in, and the world comes knocking on the door wanting to be let in. Which can be quite stressful if we don’t allow it to. It is a big world, and our box is small.

Identities can be seen as having three aspects:

General face to the world

First, as being our face to the world, generally defining our third person identity as a he/she/it. These identities are mostly exclusive: I am man, not woman. I am Norwegian, not Swedish. I like ice cream, I don’t dislike it.

Embracing the polarities

Then, as being one end of a polarity, where the other end also has some truth to it. As an individual, we include all qualities and characteristics. Anything we see out there in the world, we are right here. We embrace all the polarities. I am man, but I also have feminine qualities. I am Norwegian, but as a human being I am far more universal than that. I like ice cream, but if I have eaten too much of it - or I am sick - then I don’t like it.

Free from identities

Finally, all identities are only relative truths. When identification is released from these identities, and they are no longer taken as absolutes, I find myself as this awake emptiness, and form as awake emptiness. There are no identities here, nothing that can define this awake emptiness (not even that term). It is untouched by abstractions, yet allows for the play of abstractions and identities.

All three together

In an absolute sense, I am awake emptiness and form, untouched by any identity, yet allowing the fluid and dynamic play of them all.

In a relative sense, I am a human being with several generally exclusive identities. And looking at it a little more closely, all of their opposites are true as well. As this individual, I am everything I see.

The gifts of each

The first type of identity allows us to function in the world. It is our passport identities, the ones that differentiates us - as individuals - from others.

The second type of identity allows us to not be confined to exclusive identities. It allows us to see ourselves in others, and others in ourselves - bringing a deeper sense of intimacy, recognition and connection. It allows us to embrace more of all of what we are, and to bring it out in daily life.

The third type of identity allows for a freedom from any identity. It is the awake void allowing for the fluid play of any and all of them, without being caught up in or confining ourselves to any particular one. None are fixed, none are absolute. They are just the temporary and shifting surface ripples of the time/spaceless awake emptiness.

Two nights ago, there was another “journey” that happened on its own as I was about to fall asleep…

I am falling, a free fall - with no end, just the falling. Then, it shifts into an experience of weightlessness. I am reminded that free fall is really just weightlessness (and the other way around.)

When there is a release of identification with form, it is experienced as a free fall. There are no beliefs anymore, and no anchors for these beliefs in sensations. Beliefs in ideas as absolutely true go, including the sense of a separate self, and with them any sense of a fixed point of reference.

Right away, it can be experienced as falling - as having the ground pulled out from under ones feet. It can be disorienting and bring up fear.

But after a while, when we get more used to it, there is more of a sense of weightlessness. Of no ground, and being OK with no ground, even enjoying the freedom it gives.

Now, any view and perspective is OK. There is a fluidity among them. A receptivity to and curiosity about each of them. What is the grain of truth in each? How do they fit together in a bigger picture? They are each revealed as just containing relative truth, so none are held onto as a fixed point of reference.

This goes for any abstractions - any ideas, stories and identities - including the core one of a separate self, as well as identities as a human being, male or female, being of a certain age, and so on.

These identities are all useful and even true in terms of describing this human individual, and essential for navigating in the world. They hold a relative truth. But they do not have any absolute truth. They do not describe what I am - or what is - absolutely, which is this ground of awake emptiness, and form arising within, to and as this awake emptiness, with no separate self anywhere.

As they say in the headless world, right here - at zero distance - I am awake void full of the world, no thing for all things, no color allowing any color, no identity allowing any identity. Here, in my first person identity, I am awake void and the world happening within and as this awake void - including all my third person identities: a human being seen at a few feet away, molecules much closer in, the earth farther out, and the whole of the universe even farther out.

Over the last couple of days, a lot of things have come up for me around the three levels of being (Spirit, soul and human) and how particular qualities show up when filtered through each. These are generalizations from how it (seems to) show up in my own life right now.

In terms of oneness…

Oneness at the Spirit level

At the Spirit level, oneness shows up as awake emptiness and form, absent of any separate I. This is what we discover through the headless experiments, the Big Mind process, or other forms of inquiry, or through meditation (allowing the content to be as it is), or even spontaneously. It is the ground, awake emptiness and form as awake emptiness, so it embraces and goes beyond one and many.

It is one, in that all forms are revealed as a thin surface of the same awake emptiness. It is many, in that it includes all the many forms of the world. It is neither, in its emptiness aspect.

In itself, it is absolutely impersonal, yet becomes personal when lived through the life and relationships of an individual human.

Oneness at soul level

At the soul level, oneness shows up in a different way. I can only speak about my limited experiences here with the alive presence, fertile darkness, luminous blackness, and the indwelling God.

Oneness appears in slightly different ways for each of these.

The luminous blackness emerges out of the same awake emptiness as anything else, and is somehow intrinsically interwoven with all form. The same is true, although to a lesser extent, with the fertile darkness (which is more of a composting ground for rigid patterns of the personality.)

The alive presence and the indwelling God have a oneness quality in that they too emerge out of awake emptiness, sharing this ground with anything else. At the same time, they are both alive around, in and for this particular individual (and for any other individual, whom I assume will experience it in a similar way.)

Each of these soul aspects have an universal and a personal quality, maybe most clearly noticed with the indwelling God - which appears as a fragment of God particularly for this individual. It is universal, since it is God (Existence itself), and it is intimately individual and personal, since it is an aspect of God for this particular individual, centered in the area of the physical heart.

Oneness at human level

The oneness at our human level also takes several forms. There is the oneness of all form, arising out of the same awake emptiness, and belonging to the seamless whole of existence.

And then there is the oneness of the mirroring, of finding in ourselves any quality we see out in the wider world. What I see out there, is what I am here. The more we work with this, and become familiar with more and more of our own qualities as individuals, the more it is all revealed as universal. I see any human quality out there in others and the world, and also know it from my own life. We are all in the same boat. We all share everything it means to be human, and are one in that way.

Impersonal and personal

Oneness at each of the three levels is both impersonal and personal, universal and particular to an individual.

At the Spirit level, it is impersonal in that all is revealed as awake emptiness, inherently absent of any separate I. Yet, it becomes intimately personal when this is lived through a human life, in the world, through relationships with other individuals and the wider world.

At the soul level, it is impersonal in that it arises out of the same ground of awake emptiness as anything else, and is available to any individual. Yet, it is intimately personal, especially the alive presence and the indwelling God, in that it is a fragment of the soul level of Existence in, around and for this particular individual.

At the human level, it is impersonal through the seamless whole of the world of form, with everything having infinite causes and infinite effects, and anything happening around and through this individual representing movements of the larger whole. It is also impersonal through finding anything here that I see out there, realizing - in my bones -that we are all in the same boat, it is all just part of being human. At the same time, it is all by necessity intimately and uniquely personal, filtered through this human being.

The process of deepening into who we are, and awakening to what we are, involves an ongoing process of differentiation.

One of the most basic (and common-sense) differentiations is between ways of allowing.

Allowing as a practice

The basic way of allowing, as a practice, is to allow the content of our experiences, as they are. To allow everything, including any resistance to content and to allowing certain content.

Not allowing certain content is suffering, and creates a great deal of struggle and drama. It comes from an identification with a region of content, creating the appearance of other regions of content as other. It comes from an identification with beliefs, thoughts, ideas and identities.

Allowing it releases our identification with content, and allows the ground of this content to come more into the foreground - this ground of awake emptiness that already allows it all, that has no inherent boundaries and no inherent separate self anywhere.

This is the practice we do for ourselves, to reduce suffering, burn through habitual patterns of identification, find clarity, and find ourselves as what we already are.

We allow a full experience of what is, independent of its particulars.

Allowing (or not) in the world

The other form of allowing (or not) relates to our live as an individual in the world. Here, it is just common sense. If someone inflicts suffering on someone else, and I am in a position to change it, I will. I am not going to allow it, if I can prevent it.

Allowing experiences, but not allowing whatever to happen to myself or others

So there is a full allowing of any content of awareness, of any experiences. This brings a reduction of a sense of struggle and drama, and of the confusion that goes along with the struggle and drama. Instead, there is a sense of the stillness, quietness and clarity inherent in the ground.

At the same time, I am not going to allow certain things to happen to myself or others if I can prevent it. And independent of what unfolds, I can fully be with my experiences of it - as it is.

When we are identified with the content of awareness, there is also inevitably a sense of a doer. And when the identification goes of of the content (and back into the ground of awake void) there is still doing, but any sense of a doer goes out along with it.

A region of content filtered as a separate self, and appearing as a doer

When there is identification with content of awareness, I take myself to be a region of the content of awareness, and other regions as other. I am these thoughts, sensations, sights of this body, sounds of this voice, and an idea of a separate self placed on all of these. I think. I feel. I choose. I decide. I act. I do.

There is not only the doing, but also a doer.

Not filtered through a sense of a separate self, so no doer

When identification goes out of the content of awareness, and back into the awake void (and all content arising as the awake void itself), the sense of a separate self goes out as well. And when a sense of a separate self goes out, any sense of a doer goes out with it.

There is just the doing, with no doer. It is all just happening. A dance of form on the surface of awake emptiness. A mystery, happening within, to and as the awake void.

Cause and effect

Filtered slightly through thoughts, we see that any change in the world of form has infinite causes and infinite effects.

When there is a sense of a separate self, and an identification with a region of the content of awareness, there tends to be an identification with the very local causes and effects, those happening within this individual, the region of content taken as I. I think, choose, react, and then I do.

When identification goes out of content, and the sense of a separate self goes out with it, it is easier to see how any change, including any of the local ones, have infinite causes and infinite effects. Any shifts within this individual have infinite causes and effects, they are the local expressions of the movements of the whole of the world of form. There is thinking, choosing, reacting, and doing, and even causalities within this, but no doer, no separate self doing any of it.

Here is a slightly different way of noticing the relationship between the sense of a separate I and the one I.

For all of us (I guess) there is a sense of I here. And this is real.

But we assume that this is a separate I, an I with an Other, and we place it on this individual.

This is how the whole human drama, as we know if from our own lives and the rest of the world, comes about.

And then, this I may discover that it is not a separate I. It is really just an I without an Other.

It is the field of all there is - of wakefulness, of emptiness, of form - absent of a separate I. It may happen to be functionally connected with a particular individual, but this individual is just one aspect of the field of form, and there is no separate I anywhere.

We are an I. There can be a temporary and convincing appearance of it is a separate I, one that is placed on a segment of the field and has an Other. And then it can awaken to itself as what it always and already is, the I absent of an Other anywhere.

A rambling, unedited, stream-of-consciousness post (as most of these are), and a reminder to sometime organize this a little better, looking in more detail at some of these connections…

I talked with a friend of mine earlier today, and the conversation went into being with whatever we are experiencing.

Resistance to being with

For me, that is so much a part of my daily life that it was a good reminder of how it can be experienced in the beginning, if we are in the habit of (trying to) resisting experiences. There is often fear coming up around it, including for me with some experiences (if they are very intense, or it goes against a familiar pattern). It may seem scary, potentially overwhelming. What if it takes over? What if I loose control?

Everything included, including resistance

The beauty of just being with whatever I am experiencing, right now, is that everything is included. Whatever arises, whether fear or bliss or contractions of longing, I can simply be with it. Allow it, as it is, as it unfolds, in however way it naturally unfolds. It is very simple (which in my case is a good thing.)

Nothing is left out. Not even fear and resistance to the being with. That too is an experience I can be with.

Resistance in the form of identifications with identities

Resistance to experiences comes from identification with beliefs and identities, including the core one of a separate self. And this resistance to experiences, to what is, this sense of I and Other, creates suffering. We try to wall off experiences, wall of an aspect of what is, of existence itself, and this naturally is stressful, unpleasant, miserable. Ultimately, it is miserable because we wall off aspects of who (as individuals) and what (as Spirit) we already are. We are split against ourselves. And somewhere, we know this.

Who and what I am

There is this field of seeing and seen arising… This awake emptiness arising as form, as the landscape, the tree, sunlight, stove, lamp, sounds of the cars, sensations of the body, taste, words.

When I wall myself off from who I am, as an individual soul and human self, I may wall myself off from this alive presence, the luminous blackness, anger, fear, frustration, joy, or whatever else does not fit into the identities I identify with right now.

When I wall myself off from what I am, as Spirit (Big Mind, Brahman, Tao), I wall myself off from the rest of the field, the landscape, the trees, the awake emptiness, awake emptiness arising as form, absent of I anywhere.

Fullness, nurturing, and quiet bliss

When everything is allowed, these identifications naturally soften, become more transparent, are released, and may even completely fall away. And whatever is experienced, independent of its particular content (even great pain), gives a sense of fullness, a quiet joy and bliss, and of nourishment. Without resistance, there is rest, independent of what arises.

Relaxation and release from identifications

Identification with identities is creating walls, boxing ourselves in, putting ourselves in a cage. It is resistance to what is. So when it is all allowed, there is a relaxation and release of our basic identities, of being male or female, young or old, human, and so on. And there is also a relaxation and even release of our core identity as a separate self.

Fluidity of first person

And this allows for a fluidity of what is experienced as I and Other… What appeared as second or third person (you or it) may become first person. I may find myself as this pain, or as the alive presence, or as whatever else arises. Released from conventional identities, the sense of I can be placed on any aspect of the field arising, or as the field as a whole, without a center anywhere.

Identities without identification

Identities are still there, arising when they need to, used for practical purposes in daily life, but there is no real identification with them anymore. They are just tools for this human self to function in the world. Who I am knows how to work with them, even when there is not an ultimate identification with them.

New aliveness

When there is resistance, there is also a deadening. A deadening of experience, of life, of who and what we already are, in our fullness.

In the relaxation of resistance, there is a new aliveness. We awaken to more of the fullness of who and what we are, to what is arising here and now. And we may even work with this in a more intentional way… Who am I in my fullness, as this individual soul, this alive presence, and as this human self, finding in myself any and every quality I see in the wider world? What am I in my fullness, as this awake emptiness and the world of form arising as this awake emptiness?

Forms of active and passive

The being with whatever arises is in a way the ultimate yin approach, just allowing what already is. It is a mimicking of Ground, which already allows anything (and which is part of what we already are.) Yet it is also active, it is an active being with. It includes awareness of what is happening, and an active being with of whatever arises - that which we habitually push away, the impulse to pushing away, the resistance… whatever arises.

So being with has a passive and active element to it, yet overall it is passive. It is simply being with what already is, as it is.

Yet there is another active element that complements it. The active exploration of who and what I am, the active living of who I am within the context of what I am, and the active placing of my human self under the influence of soul and Spirit.

Exploring who and what I am

Exploring who I am as an individual human being, I can use the wider world as a mirror. Whatever qualities I see out there, in other people, animals, fictional and dream characters, in the landscape, the universe, these are qualities I already know and am familiar with - to some extent - in myself. And I can become even more familiar with these, own them (in the sense of including them in my active identity as a human being), befriend them, embrace them, explore them in my life and relationships with others and the wider world.

Exploring who I am as an individual soul, I can find myself as this alive presence, as luminous blackness, as fertile nurturing darkness, as the indwelling God, and so on. I can explore how the human self transforms within this new context, placed under the influence of this soul. How it softens, deepens, matures, becomes more fully human. I can explore how it is when the soul level is present in several of us together, how it influences our relationships,how it learns to recognize itself through mirroring itself in others (just as we do on our human level), how it unfolds in presence and relationship with others where it is alive (as individual flames coming together creating a larger fire).

Exploring what I am as awake emptiness and form, I find myself as the field of wakeful form, as it arises here and now, centerless and selfless. The I without an Other. Arising, for right now, also as this particular human self.

I recently discovered the Tricycle blogs, and found a nice little entry by Eric Pema Kunsang on what makes a Buddhist. Essentially, it is the view below. I am not sure which one of (a) believing in it (as an idea), (b) examining it in own experience, or (c) actualize it as living realization is sufficient to be considered a Buddhist, not that it matters. Here are the four aspects of the view, with my (unschooled) commentary below.

1. Everything conditioned is impermanent
   All form is change, including any experiences and states.

2. All tainted states are painful
   Whenever there is a belief in an idea, we are at odds with what is, and there is suffering. (This includes the idea of a separate I.)

3. All phenomena are empty and devoid of self-entity
   This one can be understood in different ways.

   One is that the field of form is a seamless whole, with any boundary superimposed and ultimately arbitrary. This also means that any local effect is really the result of the movements and activities of the whole, having infinite causes. So everything is empty of a real boundary, of a separate I, and also of a local cause of anything happening.

   Another is the immediate realization, or noticing, of emptiness, of every form as awake emptiness. This one is difficult to explain as logically as the previous one, but actually easier to notice here and now - for instance through headless experiments and the Big Mind process.

4. Nirvana is peace
   I am actually not quite sure what nirvana refers to, but assume it is either the awakening as awake emptiness, as the formless, or the next-door neighbor of awakening as awake emptiness and form as no other than awake emptiness. The content of awakeness, the forms arising within and to awakeness, is no other than awakeness itself. In both cases, there is a release from identification with aspects of form, so also a release from suffering.

   Another way to put it is that this awakening is the awakening to selflessness, of no separate self anywhere in the field of awakeness and form, so no I and Other, so rest and peace.

   And then there is the reminder that nirvana is samsara and samara nirvana. In this awakening, there is the realization that there was never anything besides this. There was always this field of awake emptiness and form. It only appeared differently due to a belief in the idea of a separate I, usually placed on this human self.

   They are both the same field, in one case awakened to itself as a field, and in the other case forgetful of its true nature, believing in ideas, taking itself to be only a segment of itself.
   

Of course, implied in this is that we are only awakening to what we already are, and this happens within, or even outside of, any tradition. It may be about being a good Buddhist, but is really about just seeing what already is.

Some of the recent posts have been more than a little approximate…!

Big Mind does not desire, but is desire (when it arises)

For instance, in the posts on desire and insatiability, the distinction between Big Mind and desire is not quite clear. To put it simply, Big Mind does not desire (there is no Other to desire, and in its formless aspect it is free from form). Yet it also is desire, when desire arises in an individual. At that moment, Big Mind arises as desire.

So when desire arises in an individual for a full human life and awakening arises, which seems to be our deepest desire (at least for me), then Big Mind is free from it, yet also arises as the desire.

We can say that Big Mind is the desire for it to experience itself through and as a full human life, and also as Big Mind awake to itself.

In a very approximate (and anthropomorphizing) way, we can say that Big Mind (or God) desires to experience and explore itself as finite, through and as an individual human life. And not only that, but as finite in the form of this universe, as galaxies, solar systems, planets, planets becoming alive, ecosystems, social systems, cultures, industry, subcultures, neighborhoods, families, couples, and so on.

The formless desires to experience itself as form, and form desires the formless. The infinite desires to experience itself as finite, and the finite desires the infinite.

It is a catchy and poetic way of putting it. It sounds good at that level. But it is also very imprecise. It gives the impression that God (or Big Mind) desires, yet when there is only the I without the Other, there is no desire. Only rest. Peace (even in the midst of the worst storms and the strongest desires).

Fusion

In the same post on desire, the word fusion is used, and this fusion is just one of the relationships between Spirit, soul and human self. Ultimately, it is all Spirit, all God, the centerless and selfless field of seeing and seen.

But within this, there is a fusion of the three, an infusion of Spirit awake to itself into the individual, and an infusion of soul into the human self. The previous post is on this topic.

Collective shadows

And then the post on a journey into collective shadows. Collective shadows? No. Again that is just a poetic, a little more catchy, and very approximate way of talking about it.

My journey was very much through my own individual shadow, of the many and varied dark characters that puts a face on what is there.

But this individual shadow is formed within a culture where most people put many of the same things into their shadow. Even if there is individual variations, there are also many commonalities, and that is where the idea of a collective shadow comes from. Even for humanity as a whole, across cultures, many of the same things are put in our individual shadows.

And the faces put on what is in my individual shadow is of course influenced by everything I have experienced, including dark and shadowy characters from my own culture and many other cultures.

So the immediate experience of the journey is one of journeying through our collective shadow, the shadow of humanity. But, realistically, it is of course just this individual one reflecting what is out there, in our world culture.

It doesn’t really matter for the impact the experience has on me. What was important was the experiencing of each of these dark creatures from the inside, living and breathing their life, and at the same time seeing that it is the one transcendent I which is the I of all of these.

But it is still good to make the distinction.