I usually don’t make references to traditions here since I feel that the references are implicit everywhere, and I want to keep it simple. But sometimes, it can be helpful - or at least interesting - to more explicitly look at traditions. They offer great questions and pointers for own exploration.
One of the terms from the Indian traditions is sat cit ananda - existence consciousness bliss.
Happiness research is hot these days, and it is good to see this topic finally getting the attention it deserves. After all, what do we want if not happiness?
When I explore it for myself, I find two or three layers of happiness or satisfaction.
Some folks frown when the phrase dark night is used in secular contexts, for instance describing what many of us go through after losing a job or the end of a relationship. They say it should be used only in its original meaning, as describing the dark night of the senses or the dark night of the soul.
But is it so wrong to use it in a secular sense? Maybe the secular and spiritual dark nights are not as different as they may appear?
Any dark night, whether secular or spiritual, comes about through a friction between our shoulds and reality, or rather, friction between our stories of what is and what should be. It doesn’t really matter what the content of those stories are. The effect is the same: unease, stress, tension, complains, sense of being a victim, perhaps sadness, grief, anger, frustration, sense of loss, and so on.
ThinkBuddha has an interesting post on an invitation to debate the existence of God.
It brought up a few things for me, which as usual feel very basic and only scratching the surface, but it is good to get it out. It creates an opportunity to take the next step.
As the previous “level-headed” post was quite unfair and one-sided, I thought I would be a little more inclusive here. It is also more interesting to me.
If we make the distinction between who and what we are, we get three ways to meet our human and spiritual longings.
We can meet all human and spiritual longings with spirituality tools. We can meet them with psychological tools. Or we can meet them at their own levels.
I came across this mysticism scale which I believe is from some decades back. There are probably more updated ones out there.
Questionnaires are notoriously difficult to construct. They need to be clear, appropriate to the topic/culture, refined through studies and research, and even then, it is usually possible to interpret the questions in many different ways.
1. I have had an experience which was both timeless and spaceless.
Even such an apparently simple statement runs into problems quickly. Timeless and spaceless, yes, although a timelessness that allows for (the appearance of) time and a spacelessness that allows for (the appearance of) space. And is it really an experience? Isn’t it really what experiences happens within and as? And what about the “I”? Is there an “I” there that it happens “to”? Isn’t that “I” also content of experience? That which happens within the timeless/spaceless?
When we use tools in daily life, we use a good deal of common sense.
If a particular tool works for a specific task, we continue using it.
If it doesn’t seem to work, we explore alternatives - often with help from someone who is more familiar with it than we are. We may find another way of using the same tool, or we may try another tool and see if that works better.
And the same is a good approach to how we use tools for healing, maturing and awakening.
If it doesn’t seem to work, it doesn’t make sense to continue using it the same way - or with more effort! - and expect a different result.
Essensual is not a new word, but I just recently heard it.
It captures the juicy combination of awakeness and a human life beautifully.
Essence comes in at least three flavors.
It is that sense of wholeness, contentment and meaning that is here when I notice myself as the whole that embraces and includes body and mind.
It is that sense of profound meaning, kindness and wisdom that is here when the soul level is alive, when the alive presence is here in and around the body and everywhere else.
It is what I really am and everything is, the play of awake emptiness as form.
Someone asked me yesterday what meditation is, and as usual I didn’t quite know what to say, apart from mentioning that there are many types and describing briefly the most easily explained type of inviting attention to stabilize.
What it really is about, of course, is noticing what we really are. But that sounds perhaps too grandiose. I could say something simple like are you your body, or are your body in you? which invites people to look there and then, but in a casual social setting that seems a little contrived too.
The truth is that what we are, and what meditation really is about, is too simple to put in words very easily. It easily sounds too naive. It is, in many ways, too obvious. And in other ways, too weird. And using fancy words from tradition - Brahman, Buddha Mind, Tao and so on - makes it sound far more abstract, exotic and unreachable than it is.
So asking are you in the body, or the body in you? is maybe not a bad approach. It may at least spark some curiosity, or rather bring attention to a curiosity that is naturally there.
It is easy to recognize some expressions of love.
But what about emotions such as anger, sadness and fear? And what about our responses to fear, such as beliefs? What about trying to find safety by fixating on a position as true, and attaching to a story as true? Are they too expressions of love?
When I have a belief such as “I should have made a different choice”, I see - through inquiry - that it is a love for this poor human self trying to figure out life. It is love trying to protect it and make things OK.
Similarly, emotions such as anger, sadness and fear come from love. They come from a love for this human self, trying to protect it, make its life as good as possible.
This love is obviously filtered through a sense of a separate self and a circle of us, but it is nevertheless love.
Is even the sense of separate self an expression of love? Yes, when I look a little closer, I see that it is love filtered in many different - and sometimes circular - ways. It is love for the story of a separate I. It is love for the play, lila. It is love of temporary confusion, mistaken identities, and the drama played out through human lives that way.
Any belief is hubris.
I tell myself I know how things are, and not only that, how things should be. I know better than God, life, the Universe, reality.
Life will inevitably rub up against these beliefs. I can struggle against it and try to hold onto my beliefs and suffer. Or, through grace, I can find some receptivity and allow the beliefs to wear off, or more actively inquiry into them to find what is more honest for me.
In this way, life is a humbling process. A process of friction between life and beliefs, and a wearing away of these beliefs.
Here is what is so obvious when it is realized, so utterly simple, and so almost completely impossible to get when it is not directly noticed:
Reality - what we are and everything is - is already awake. Inescapably. Already awake independent of whether it shows up as clarity or confusion, experiencer or experienced, awake to itself as what it really is or not. It is simply the everyday run-of-the mill awakeness we are all so intimately familiar with that we often don’t even notice it.
And when we do notice, it may appear as “other” if we are identified as something within content of this awakeness such as this human self, a doer, an observer. It may even appear to come and go if we tell ourselves stories that confusion = less awakeness (not true if we look), or that sleep/being unconscious means the awakeness goes away (not really true either).
The second form of being awake is already mentioned. Reality - what we really are - can be awake to itself as what it really is, or not.
So reality is already awake. Awake no thing appearing as something. Vast. Timeless. That which all content of experience - including extent, duration, a doer, an observer - happens within and as.
And also, it can be awake to itself as what it really is, or not. This shift is a blip and pales in comparison with the vast timelessness of the other, although it is usually experienced as quite significant, and does have a significant impact on the life of this human self. When reality is awake to itself, this human self is liberated from being identified with and is allowed to realign within this new context of reality awake to itself.
One is what is already here, inescapably. The other is noticing it, or not.
How can I notice and explore this, in a simple and practical way?
I can use headless experiments. The Big Mind process. Investigating sense fields. And many other forms of gently guided inquiry into what is already here now. Inquiries that sets aside our habitual assumptions (stories) for a while, and allows attention to go to what is already here.
A common metaphor for how we relate to experience is digestion.
When a certain experience is digested well, there is some clarity around my stories about it, an allowing of the experience as is and with kindness, and acting with some integrity from what seems most mature, wise and kind in the situation even from a conventional view.
When it is digested less well, there tends to be a resistance to the experience, a holding onto certain stories about it as true, and acting from less integrity. And in this case, the undigested experience will tend to come up again to be digested more fully.
It may come up when a current situation or event triggers the memory of it. Or when there is receptivity for it, for instance through allowing another experience (this one may come along, hoping to be digested as well), or when we are not able to distract ourselves from it - for instance at night in bed, while on retreat, or in nature for a length of time.
Any practice has elements of inquiry, devotion, integrity and service.
It can be an expression of love for reality (God, Buddha Mind). It can be an expression of curiosity: what happens if…? It can be an expression of integrity, a sincere intention to live more aligned with reality. And it can be an expression of service, of realigning this human life so it better can be of service to the larger whole.
So there is fertile ground for exploration here. Any of those four is a practice in itself, and it includes elements of each of the other ones. What is the devotion component of inquiry? What is the integrity component of service? What is the service component of devotion? What do I find in my own experience?
Labyrinths are often used as an image of the spiritual path, or of the path to wholeness.
I don’t know much about how it is talked about in the different traditions or in mythology, but the times I have walked a labyrinth, I have been struck by the insights that came from it, and also a new heartfelt acceptance and appreciation for my own windy and labyrinthish path.
I start at the perimeter, and may have the goal in sight or not. It is a long and windy path. Sometimes, it appears to go in the wrong direction. Several times, I come back to nearly where I was, although with a slight difference. I get close to the goal, and then the path turns around. A great deal of ground is covered, in fact, it may cover nearly the whole ground. When others walk the labyrinth at the same time, we sometimes get close together and other times further away from each other. Walking the labyrinth, we are all in the same boat, and we cannot easily tell who is further along. (If that question even has meaning, other than in a very limited sense.) I may appear to make choices - to others and myself - but what I am really doing is just placing one foot in front of the other, and the steps are guided by the path.
Detachment is one of those words we may hear in teachings, yet don’t quite know what means.
What is it for me, when I explore it from own experience?
The main form of detachment is when identification falls away. When I recognize content of experience as what I am, whatever it may be, and also what this happens within and as as what I am. When exclusive identification with stories softens and falls away, the form of identification that excludes parts of what is, the one that creates (the appearance of) an I with an other.
The spiritual path looks quite different depending on where we are coming from.
When there is a glimpse of what we are, the spiritual path becomes a process of clarifying and living from it. It is a process of examining the veils that may cover it up again, make ourselves familiar with the dynamics, and also recognize more clearly that what we are is already independent of veils or clarity, confusion or awakening.
This glimpse can come at any point on the path, including before the path has started, and it can come repeatedly before it stabilizes, or be quite stable right away. No rules here, it seems.
The actor and role analogy is appropriate for both psychology and spirituality.
In psychology, the analogy refers to the roles we play as humans in the world, at different times in our lives and in different situations. The actor here is our human self.
And in spirituality, the analogy includes the roles we play as a me (human being) and I (doer, observer). The actor is what we are - that which all happens within and as - taking on all these temporary roles.
This post started as a play with the different theist labels (atheist, non-theist, theist, pantheist, panentheist etc.) and how they all describe aspects of how I relate to the world. They all fit, in their own way.
Playing with stories in that way can be instructive. I can find how they each have validity for me so I don’t get (too) stuck in any one of them, and then do the same with the many possible stories holding them all. I can notice some of the dynamics going on around these stories and the ways I apply and live from them. I can explore how and when each of these stories seem helpful as a guide for attention and action. I can notice how I tend to play with stories in un-conventional ways, finding the truth in them for me in that way, and also am free to use them in conventional ways - and usually do - when I talk with others.
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: “The flag is moving.”
The other said: “The wind is moving.”
The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He told them: “Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving.”
- The Gateless Gate #29
The wind and flag are moving in my own world of images. There are perceptions and then an overlay of images telling me it is a flag moving in, or being moved by, the wind. It is all happening within my own world of images. When I recognize that, there is the possibility of not taking my own world of images as substantial and real. It is very helpful to use an imagined overlay, but also good to notice it is all happening within my own world of images.
I listened to a Zen talk about how difficult it is to notice when we are caught up in the ego. It is true, of course, but also not.
The word ego in a spiritual context points to identification with a viewpoint. Or more accurately, with a story and its viewpoint and corresponding identity, and the role in the world that goes with it.
Even clarifying that makes it easier. When we talk about ego, it can sound a little vague and abstract. But identifying with a viewpoint is a little more concrete and familiar. It is something we are more likely to notice as it happens.
And as we get familiar with the symptoms of identifying with a viewpoint, there is even more of a possibility of recognizing it as it happens. We may not be able to shift out of it completely, right there and then, but we can at least recognize that we are caught up in identification with a viewpoint, and do ourselves and others a favor and not blindly act on it.
Two ways of using the phrase awake to itself…..
These are very simple when recognized, and very difficult to talk about.
First, anything happening in experience is already awake to itself as form. Something happens, and it is awake to itself as form where it is.
(Only a trick of the mind makes it appear otherwise. There is a mental image of an observer, usually located in the head area. Another image or story that makes it appear that awareness only belongs to this image of an observer. And yet another image or story of this observer being aware of what is happening in experience.
Since the observer gestalt is identified with, it is not recognized as form, as content of experience as any other content of experience. The doer and observer gestalts become the eyeball that cannot see itself. And form is not recognized as awareness since awareness is interpreted as belonging only to the observer.)
The other meaning of awake to itself is that what we are can be awake to itself as ground. Identification is released out of the doer and observer gestalts since all is recognized as already awake to itself where it is, since doing and observing is recognized as happening on their own without any doer or observer, and the doer and observer gestalts are recognized as content of experience as any other content of experience.
When form is not recognized as already awake to itself, what we are is not awake to itself either. Awareness is interpreted to belong to the observer image, and the observer image is not recognized as simply another content of experience.
And when what we are is awake to itself, form is recognized as already awake to itself.
Some teachers and traditions talk about veils.
As I explore it in my own experience, I find something that can be called veils and they are thicker, thinner and gone at different times.
When I am identified with the me (this human self with its roles and identities in the world) and separate I (doer and observer), there is a stronger sense of a separate self in the world with an inside and outside and so on. The weils for what I am to notice itself is thicker. There is a sense of a greater distance between what I take myself to be (me) and reality (ground).
The veil gets thinner as identification is released from the me, and yet remains as a doer and observer. The general sense of being a separate self weakens and softens. There may be less sense of an inside and outside. All may be recognized as God, or awakeness, no thing appearing as something. The remaining veil is that of a doer and observer, a center and periphery. There is still some separation between what I take myself to be and reality. (Copartnership with God, as Rumi calls it.)
As what we are awakens to itself the veils falls away. The separate I gestalts (doer, observer) are recognized as content of experience and identification is released out of them. The sense of center-periphery and of a doer and observer falls away. Everything is recognized as always happening on its own, already and always awake, as the play of awakeness as form, and as no thing appearing as something.
When I explore something in thought, there is always further to go, always more thoughts generated. More details, viewpoints, another level of transcend and include and so on.
And when I explore in immediacy - for instance how something appears in each sense field - it is a mystery. I can find ways to describe it including in all the Big Mind and conventional ways, but it is an utter mystery.
I bring attention to an emotion (joy, sadness, anger) or pain, notice that it is a sensation and a label, and cannot tell what it is. I bring attention to the doer and observer gestalts, notice them too as sensations and images, and cannot tell what it is. I explore any object, including my own face in the mirror, and cannot tell what it is.
…. for the maintenance of equilibrium of the society, sometimes killing is necessary.
That quote is from the Youtube user who uploaded this documentary on Iwo Jima.
Is killing ever neccesary? Is any choice or action every neccesary?
Even from a conventional view, it is obvious that it is not.
We may chose an action because it seems appropriate in a situation. Or we may believe a story and feel compelled to chose and act a certain way. But there is nothing inherent in any situation that “require” a certain way of chosing and acting. (Although we can also say that whatever choice and action happens is neccesary because any choice and action has infinite causes, it is the local manifestations of the movements of the whole.)
Using words such as “neccesary” is a way of covering up this choice, and our responsibility in making the choice and taking a certain action. We put the responsibility out there, on the situation, while it belongs right here with ourselves.
So the question, as always, is: When do I see something as neccesary? A view? An action? When do I try to cover up my choice by making it appear neccesary?
We live our history, before and even within awakening. We can’t help it since that is all our human self has to go by.
And when others live from a conditioning that is quite different from my own, it is easy to notice that we all live from our own history.
Here is a good example for me:
Two spiritual teachers appear to sometimes live from the story they should have told me. In one case, they should have told me about no-self. (That it can be recognized.) In the other case, they should have told me about the dark night. (How stark it can be.)
There is no self in several ways….
First, in the sense that there may be a me + I here - a human self with identities and roles, and gestalts of a doer and observer - but is that what I am? Through investigation, I may find that all of it happens within content of experience, as any other content of experience. It comes and goes. It is not what I am, independent of whether there is identification with it or not. So there is a self here, as a me + I, in a conventional sense, but it is not what I really am.
….yet attuned to the hidden logic available from non-rational sources including temporary states in which the personal self disappears.
Even a brief sentence like this is fertile ground for questions and inquiry.
… the personal self disappears.
Some ways to take spiritual teachings…
They can be taken as entertainment in a conventional sense. As fun ideas to play with, whether we take them on as true or not.
They can be taken as questions and pointers for own exploration.
And they can be taken as entertainment in the lila sense. The teachings and our own explorations are the play of God, of what we are.
When what we are is awake to itself, and a human self functions within this context, the way this human self functions in the world will often look like love. And it is as natural, effortless and independent of states and emotions as when the right hand removes a sliver from the left.
When this love is filtered through beliefs, as it is for most of us, it becomes another form of love. It is a love for what we take as a separate I and its circle of us. It is a love of protection, defense, accumulation. It is a love that is expressed through any of our beliefs and emotional attachments, and any reactivity that comes from these beliefs and attachments. It is really a love for a story, a story taken as true. And it can look as anything but love.
Again, it is good to notice…. It is all an expression of love.
| donation | donation | donation | donation | donation | donation | donation |
