….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.
My wife had a recent shift into recognizing all as happening within awareness, as awareness, and being the same or neutral. (One taste, as they call it.)
It reminded me of how this can have three distinct flavors for me:
(more…)
The process of growing and waking up is also a process of befriending reality. Of sincerely and honestly find what is more true for us than any story.
Reality is almost a dirty word in some circles, and rightly understandably so if it means to cling to stories as true, and it happens in the “I get it, you don’t” context.
But it can also be what is found through that sincere and honest exploration. What is more true for me than any particular story? How does it look for me to live from it?
I may find that when I find what is more true for me than any belief, there is a liberation. The story is liberated from being taken as true. Who I am is liberated from being limited by the identity created from that belief. What I am is liberated from being limited by that belief. As someone said, the truth will set you free.
And I may also find other things… and each of these stories are their own questions, and what they point to are their own beginnings of inquiry.
… and said that after Self-realisation there is no thinker of thoughts, no performer of actions and no awareness of individual existence.
- from the current Wikipedia entry on Self-Inquiry (Atma Vichara)
I haven’t studied Ramana Maharshi much, but I suspect this is an inaccurate translation.
There is no thinker or doer, or at least no identification as the gestalt (sensation-image) of a thinker or doer. The gestalts may still be there, or not, but they are no longer taken as what we are.
And there is no awareness of individual existence either, yet that phrasing may be a little misleading, possibly fitting into ideas of meditation as a way of zoning out: There is an individual existence, but no awareness of it, as if we had successfully banished it from awareness through sophisticated practices of denial.
I sometimes use the phrase “all as God” in these posts, and this phrase is a shorthand, a pointer and a question.
What it refers to is alive in immediate awareness as I use the phrase. At times more in the foreground, and at times more in the background. And it has many facets and there are many (other) ways of talking about it.
It is the groundless Ground everything is happening as and within. It is all happening as/within a field of awakeness. All happening as no-thing appearing as something. That which is left when “I” is not there, or is recognized as just another gestalt and content of experience. Capacity for whatever is happening, and what is happening. That which cannot be touched by stories. And so on.
As always, the story of “all as God” is less helpful if we stop at the story. It is less than helpful if we take it as true, as a belief. And it can be quite helpful if we take it as a pointer and a question, an invitation for inquiry into what is alive in immediate awareness.
One of the many teaching tools is to say that I am reminding you of what you already know.
And as for any teaching, the question is when it may be helpful, and when not.
First, this pointer is obviously a supplement to other pointers. It gives a slight tweak to other pointers, inviting us to notice what is already here and not expect it somewhere else – in the future, in others, in the past, in a different state and so on. What I am looking for is already here, I just need to notice.
In that sense, it can be very helpful in many different situations.
There may be an awakening here, but not quite clear and embodied, and the pointer you already know is an invitation to notice and then trust what is already here. What we are looking for is not in the future, others, in a different state, but right here now. Other pointers give us more specific guidelines for inquiry, and this one is an invitation to sincerely look at – and trust as sufficient – what is here in immediacy.
Also, something may be true for us but we don’t act on it due to a (contrary) belief. In this case, you already know may be just the encouragement we need to trust it a little more and eventually act on it. (True for me right now.)
And if there has not been any awakening yet, you already know is – again – an invitation to look here. To not expect it in the future, in a different state, and so on.
Then, when may it be less helpful?
As with any teaching, it may be less helpful as soon as it is taken as anything else than a question and an invitation to explore for ourselves. For instance, if I take it to mean that my stories about anything at all are true and valid, it is obviously a sidetrack. A very understandable sidetrack but still a sidetrack. It is a distraction from a more sincere and honest inquiry into what is here in immediacy.
So as with any teaching, it all depends on how it is received. And when students are likely to receive it in a helpful way, the statement may be just right. If not, something else may be more helpful. Or this one may still be helpful if presented in the right context.
Stories are tools for our human self to orient and function in the world. When they are functional, and align with our other stories, we sometimes call them “true”. But even in a conventional sense, we cannot know if any story is really true. In fact, we can assume they are not. There will always be other stories that may make more sense to us, and be more functional than the ones we are familiar with.
So in a conventional sense, there is no truth to them.
And looking a little more closely, we may find that what they describe are appearances only, no thing appearing as something, the play of God.
All stories, no matter their content, really say one thing, and that is “God”.
That is the real universal translator. Any story > God.
I say, I want pistachio ice cream, and what I am saying is “God”. He did a good job > God. The cat sleeps > God.
It is God appearing as someone wanting ice cream. As someone doing a good job. As a cat sleeping.
What each part of those sentences refer to is God.
It is easy to misunderstand what is meant by lies and truth in the previous post.
A lie is what happens when I take a story, any story, as true. And I live a lie then, because I cannot help not acting on what I take as true.
So what is a truth?
It is the action that seems most clear and kind to me in any particular situation, when stories are recognized as stories only. Stories are recognized as having no truth to them, only practical value, and I chose one to act on because it seems the most clear and kind thing to do in the particular situation. It is very simple, but it takes some inquiry to get there. And there is always further to go – in inquiring into stories and finding more clear and kind ways of acting in the world.
Even when I chose a story to act on, and it seems the clear and kind thing to do in a particular situation, that too is a question.
And there is no reason why those actions shouldn’t look clear and kind in a conventional sense as well, in almost all cases. If they don’t, it is an invitation to look again, to see if there is another story there I take as true, making me act in ways that do not appear clear and kind to others.
How it appears to others is a good test, not because they are not caught up in stories as well because they are, but because sanity looks sane even in a conventional sense.
When I recognize stories as questions, they can be very helpful. They can help me orient and function in the world. And each story may be helpful in some situations, and less so in other.
But if I take a story as how things are, it gets weird. After all, the world is doing its own thing independent of my stories. And it will eventually do something that doesn’t fit my story, whatever that story is.
Chances are, it is already doing something that doesn’t fit my story, and I already know that if I am honest with myself.
And what are some of the signs of me taking a story as true? A sense of having to protect or defend it, or any identity that comes with it. A sense of separation to myself, others, life. A sense of needing to support it with other stories. Tension. Stress. Reactivity. And also saying things like in my opinion… as if I expected the world to conform!
What does it mean to be present? Or more accurately, to notice that you are present? When is it a useful pointer, and when not?
It is a pointer to bring attention to what is here now. To what happens in any sense field, including the mental field when it is noticed as happening here now.
And it is helpful in just that way. It is an invitation to notice that it is all happening here now, including mental field creations of past and future. It is an invitation to notice what happens when I get lost in ideas of past and future and take them as real and substantial (stress), and what happens when I notice them as ideas only (recognized as memories and scenarios, and as tools only).
As any pointer, it may be helpful and functional in some situations – in this case when someone is in the habit of getting lost in mental field creations without noticing what is happening.
But the pointer can also have drawbacks.
The witness/observer gestalt tends to come up, and it may easily be taken as what we are. I recognize that I am not most of what is happening in the sense fields, and the gestalts that come from a mental field overlay. Instead, I take the witness gestalt as what I am, and don’t recognize that one as a gestalt as well.
The idea of present also implies past and future, the three come in one package. So if the idea of present is taken as substantial and real, the idea of past and future tend to be taken as substantial and real as well.
A practical approach here is to use notice you are present as a pointer to bring attention to what is happening in the sense fields, and notice them as content of experience.
Then notice the idea of “present” overlaid on the sense fields, how it implies past and future, and how all of those ideas happen here now in the mental field.
And also investigate the sense of witness or observer created, see how it appears in the sense fields, and notice that too as a gestalt and content of experience.
Am I content of experience? Am I any of the gestalts? Content of experience comes and goes, what is it that does not come and go?
It is common to hear folks say you are not your thoughts or emotions, or anything within experience. (Well, at least common among people interested in those things.)
And this is a good illustration on how teachings are pointers only, or medicine aimed at a specific condition. In this case, it is aimed at the condition of (blindly) identifying with thoughts, emotions, or content of experience in general.
As with any other statement, it is a pointer and a question. As any other teaching, it is medicine aimed at a specific condition, helpful in some situations and not other, and without any inherent truth. And as any other story, there is a grain of truth in its reversals.
I haven’t said much about the title of this blog, Mystery of Existence.
What does it mean? What is not a mystery? What is a mystery?
A simple pointer that came up in the CSS practitioner group….
When we take ourselves to be an object in the world, our experience may be of many beings and one world. There are lots of different beings – humans, animals, plants and so on – and they all share the same world, this planet and universe.
Yet, when what we are notices itself – and it doesn’t have to be a completely clear noticing – it all shifts. Now, it all looks like many worlds and one being. It is all awakeness itself, and each human, animal and plant is their own world, filtering awakeness and its forms in different ways.
Maybe we can say that in a modern worldview, there is one world and many beings. In a post-modern worldview, there are many worlds and many beings. And for mystics, there are many worlds and one being.
And this too is just a pointer, an invitation for inquiry. How is it for me? What are the practical consequences of each view? How would I live differently if there were many worlds and one being? When I explore, can I find many worlds and one being in immediate awareness? What happens if there is a shift into Big Mind or headlessness?
Saying that God is longing to know itself is, as anything else, only a pointer, an invitation to exploration. It is not true or not true, apart from in the most limited sense, and the reversals are equally true.
So how is this a pointer? In what way is it a helpful teaching? What is it a remedy for?
The most obvious may be as an invitation to explore our own longings. I can take any longing in my own life, however mundane and unspiritual it may seem, and trace it back. What is it really a longing for? What is more genuinely true for me about it than its surface appearance?
I have a desire for food. What is it about? I find that it is about survival, avoiding suffering, and finding some happiness. It is innocent, and a way to take care of this human self.
I have a desire for success. Here too, I find that it is about survival, avoiding suffering, and finding some happiness. Again, it is innocent, and it is love filtered through stories.
I have a longing for connection. Again, I find the same things.
By exploring this, I find that my longings – the ones I have looked into so far – are all innocent, and they are love filtered through certain stories. The longing is always genuine and innocent. And the strategies to fulfill those longings may or may not make sense after I investigate them. If they don’t, there is always room to try something else.
There is a relaxation here, a relase of struggle with myself.
I also find that each longing is a longing for allowing what is, as it is, and for a full and rich human life. In other words, it is a longing for waking up – for appreciating what is, as it is, including the confusion, drama and mistaken identities, and also for releasing identification out of stories and identities, and the drama and resistance that comes from getting caught up in them. And it is a longing for growing up, for healing and maturing as a human being in the world.
So the pointer God is longing to know itself is a way for me to clarify my own longings, my own intentions and desires. Not to change them, but to see what they really and genuinely are about for me. And I may find that they are innocent, and genuine desires to grow and wake up. There is a new sense of alignment when this is recognized, and it may happen over and over as I explore new longings and desires, or explore again the ones I have looked at before. It is always new. Fresh. Different.
There are also other ways the hadith God is longing to know itself is a pointer.
It is an invitation to see what is happening here now. To notice that form happens within and as awakeness, and not even that, just as the mystery no pointers can touch. This world of form, as it is, is God longing to know itself. It is no thing longing to know itself as (the appearance of) something, in always new, fresh and different ways.
It is of course an anthropomorphism. There is no longing there. And yet, maybe we can say there is. The movement into form in itself can be seen as a longing for God to know itself as and through form.
Including as this universe, planet, plants, animals, humans, mistaken identities, awakenings, and whatever else is happening.
There is of course a present in a conventional sense. There is something here – this human self and the wider world – and it is here now, not in the past or the future.
At the same time, it is possible to discover – in immediate awareness – that there is no present in two ways.
First, when I take “present” to be real and substantial, I have to take past and future as real and substantial as well. The three come in the same package. And when I recognize all three as mental field creations only, then “present” is left as a very useful pointer to what is happening in the sense fields.
Then, when I notice that past and future are thoughts only, and as ephemeral and insubstantial as a thought, a question comes up: Is the present different? Is what “present” points to, what is happening in the sense fields, any more real and substantial than what a thought is?
I can notice “present” as a pointer only, as a convenient mental field creation and insubstantial as any other thought. And I can notice what “present” points to – whatever is happening in the sense fields – also as insubstantial as a thought.
All of this can be explored through the sense fields. And as I become more familiar with it, what happens?
Do I notice past, future and present as mental field overlays, as they happen? Do I use “present” as a pointer only, to what is happening in the sense fields? Do I notice the sense fields to be no more substantial than a thought?
What happens to a sense of me here? What happens to a sense of I? Are these also recognized as mental field overlays only?
What is left?
How does this human self function differently in the world when these are noticed? Does it need to look very different? Is there still a sense of drama? Does the drama tend to fall away?
Also, is it true that I didn’t already notice this?
All is truth. It is something we can agree on across worldviews. All is reality, and reality is truth. Everything, as it is, is in its essence or nature truth, however we see or talk about that essence or nature. (Mystics may say it is all God, awakeness, no thing appearing as something.)
And at the same time, we can find truth in any story. We can find a grain of truth there. We can find how it is valid in our own experience, even if this may be different from how it was intended or others see it.
There is a relief in recognizing both of these. Recognizing that all already is truth, I can leave it to reality to be truth. It doesn’t need me to defend it even if I could. (Which I can’t for many reasons.) And recognizing the grain of truth in any story, there is appreciation for any story that comes up anywhere, from any source. It is a question for me, a pointer. How is it true for me? (In that very limited way that any story has validity.)
What does it mean to grow and/or wake up?
A simple answer is that it is an alignment with reality.
Growing up as who I am, as this human self in the world, has several aspects. And each of these has to do with aligning a little closer with reality.
I learn to find here what I see out there, in the wider world and in past and future. And this can be a gradual process. I find more and more here of what I see out there. I become more and more familiar with it. My human identity embraces and includes more and more of it. I become more comfortable with it.
I realize that I don’t know. I don’t know anything for certain. This too can be a gradual process. I can realize that I don’t know in more and more areas of life, and with more clarity.
I mean, what you got to lose? You know, you come from nothing.
You’re going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!
Always look on the bright side of life!
Nothing will come from nothing. You know what they say?
- From Always Look on the Bright Side of Life, Life of Brian
There are two ways of looking at this…
First, within (the story of) time. There was a time when none of this was here. No me, none of the ones I know, no humans, no living planet, no solar system, no galaxy, no universe as we know it. And there will be such a time again, so nothing is gained and nothing is lost.
Then, here now. It all happens as the play of awakeness. Insubstantial. Ephemeral. No traces.
The first one happens within stories, wihtin the creations and play of the mental field. The second can be an immediate noticing and realization outside of the mental field. (Although guided by and later reflected in/expressed through the mental field.)
In both cases, it can be sad initially. There is a loss of the story of something happening.
But then it is freeing. Since all of this will be gone, why not act in ways that align with what is really important to me? Why not follow my heart? And since it is all the play of awakeness itself, why not do the same?
Three flavors of exploring what I am…
I can mimic what I am. I can go into a mental field image of what I am. I can rely on a memory, or what I am told.
I can notice what I am, with curiosity, receptivity, don’t know.
And what I am can reveal itself to itself.
The first one can be a useful stepping stone into the two other. The second can, and often do, happen while there is still identification with a separate I. (Although it may loosen.) The third, if it is thorough, can release identification out of the story of a separate I.
The two first comes from a sense of doing, from something that is engaged in and initiated by this separate I. And the third is grace.
Some flavors of love…
Awareness itself is unconditional love. It allows anything as it is. Resistance to experience, allowing experience. Clarity, confusion. Awareness awake to itself or not. All is allowed as a guest, as is.
I can notice that awareness already and always is unconditional love. And when there is a shift into allowing experience, it is an act of love. It is a shift out of (identification with) resistance, into (more conscious alignment with) what I already am.
Another flavor of love is what happens when awareness is awake to itself, and is lived through a human life. Living in a way that looks like love is then as natural as the right hand helping the left. (Especially if that human self is relatively mature and healthy.)
Then there are the different flavors of love as content of experience. A feeling in the heart. A felt sense of love.
The first is independent of whatever happens in content of experience. The second is dependent of the “state” of awareness being awake to itself, and lived through a human life. And the third is a state.
The first is always and already here. The second is a guest that comes and goes, depending on whether awareness is awake to itself or not, and whether there is a human self around or not. And the third is also a guest that comes and goes, often within quite short timespans.
In most areas of life, demystifying that which can be demystified is a practical and sensible approach. (Or so we think in our culture, so why not play along?)
Most spiritual teachers today do a good job demystifying mysticism. They use a clear and direct language. They use a practical approach. They often describe direct experience instead of relying exclusively on traditional – and sometimes confusing – terminology.
And by doing this, what is truly mystifying is left even more obviously mystifying.
Something is. What can be more amazing?
And I don’t know. A story may appear functional in a practical sense, but it is still a story. A story may appear to point to what I am, but it doesn’t really. Even when what I am is awake to itself, that is all that is known. And even that is mystifying.
So it can be helpful to demystify that which can be demystified, such as maps and pointers, leaving what is truly mystifying still mystifying.
And it may be less helpful to do the reverse. To mystify that which can be clear. And to demystify – by taking stories about it as true – that which is genuinely mystifying, which is everything.
When I first came to the US, I had to reorient to a different way of responding to the question how are you? Where I am from, it is a question asked among friends and only if you have time for a conversation. Here it is used more as a quick hi or an invitation for a brief exchange.
Since a briefer answer is expected, I have to condense it into a couple of words or sentences. So what to pick?
As awakeness, all is fine. Whatever happens is awakeness itself, so it is outside of anything that can be called good or bad, fine or not.
There is also a quiet joy in any experience. A quiet joy in experience itself, independent of the content of that experience.
I can be caught up in stories or not. When I am, there is drama and struggle to some extent. When I am not, there is clarity.
Then there are the conventional and cultural views on situations. Situations are seen as generally good and desirable or not.
And each of these can be more in the foreground or background. For instance, when what I am is more in the foreground, the question doesn’t make sense and whatever I say is clearly recognized as just a story, playing a game.
In answering briefly the question how are you? I can speak from either of these layers. I can say fine, because it is not inaccurate, no matter what happens. I can come from being caught up in stories or not. I can mention something happening in my life, and people will take it as good or not.
I keep reminding myself that a story is a pointer with temporary and practical value only.
Any story can be a guide for how I live in the world, and a pointer for exploration. And it has more or less practical value depending on the situation. But not much more.
So how is the reverse also true?
Buddhist teachers like to give surprising answers to the question what is Buddha?
Three pounds of flax seed. A shit covered stick.
And sometimes, just twirling a flower.
It may sound clever. Or cute. Or confusing. Or even deep.
But it can be very simple.
Each of these – flax seed, shit, twirling a flower – is awakeness itself.
The question is, what is Buddha? And the answer is literal, pointing directly to the Buddha. To a form that is awakeness itself.
It is the simplest, most direct answer possible.
Draft…
The traditional teachings say that reality is not one and not two, and also that there is nothing yet something.
So if I use these as pointers for exploration, what do I find? How does it look in immediate experience, at least here now?
Reality is not one, and not two.
How is it not two? All is awakeness. Whatever happens is awakeness itself, appearing as experienced and experience and anything else.
How is it not one? Through a mental field overlay, we can differentiate in different ways For instance, we can differentiate between awakeness and form, experienced and experience, and so on. Also, this human self appears as a center of perception, thought, action and so on. And there is also a wider world.
How is it both? All is awakeness, and this awakeness appears as many when filtered through a mental field overlay.
How is it neither? All of these are stories. Pointers at most. A medicine designed to meet a specific condition. As stories in general, each of these have value only as a practical guideline in a specific situation.
I have seen a couple of teachers who have less than favorable things to say about the Big Mind process. One sees it as a scam, promising instant enlightenment. Another, as aiming at “integration” when all is already the play of emptiness.
But really, it seems quite simple…
The Big Mind process can be seen as just another flavor of two time-honored traditions.
It is a form of inquiry. An especially thorough and flexible form of inquiry.
And it is a form of pointing out instructions. Of inviting us all to notice here & now what we already are.
Teachings, as any story, are questions. They are pointers and guides for own exploration. They are medicines aimed at specific knots.
And they are also supplements. They are supplements to each other.
I may have a main teacher, and follow one particular teaching as a main guideline for practice. And anything else that comes my way can be helpful pointers as well. I can explore when and how they each are useful.
Some may invite what I am to notice itself. Others may invite the soul level – in some of its many aspects – into the foreground. Some may invite in healing and maturing at a human level.
Some may be quite useful as they are. Others may need some tweaking here and there, especially if they are not quite aligned with the larger picture of what we are.
But all in all, they are all supplements to each other. Each can function as a helpful guide in certain situations, and in exploring certain facets of who and what I am. The only question is how and when. And whatever temporary answers I find are questions, as any other story. A temporary guideline in itself.
So here too, even as I may be familiar with any number of maps and theories, and trust and follow the teachings of my main teacher, it all still comes back to don’t know. The open spaciousness of don’t know.
The main question in all of this is the usual one.
A few forms of clarity…
First, the clarity inherent in awakeness itself. The clarity that comes into the foreground when awakeness notices itself, is – at least somewhat – awake to itself. (Including as form, experience.)
This clarity is independent of what happens in content of experience. This content can be quite confused and dull, as it was for me earlier today. Yet, the clarity inherent in awakeness itself is still there, even in the foreground as awakeness notices itself and itself as whatever is happenening in experience.
Then there is the clarity of insight into dynamics. There can be a (relative) clarity into dynamics within content of experience. I may notice how sense fields combine to create gestalts. What happens when there is identification with stories. And so on.
And finally, there can be a mental clarity, a sense of clarity within stories.
All of these come from insight, in their own way.
In the first case, an insight into all as awakeness itself. (Or rather, a noticing of all as awakeness.)
In the second case, a relative insight into dynamics. This one can be reflected in stories, but does not primarily happen within stories.
And finally, a clarity within stories. An ability to arrange imaginations in a way that seems clear. (Sometimes very helpful as guides for functioning in the world.)
| donation | donation | donation | donation | donation | donation | donation |
