All of us function, in life, with regard to various motives. We react in (and “as”) conditioned responses involving these motives. Each motive gives us a certain direction to move in; we follow these specific directions, based on motives, throughout life (just as we were taught to). Very few of us have considered directionless. Very few have inquired into the possibility of perceiving without being constantly influenced by motives or directions. Each of us has motives and directions that each one clings to and functions from, (even the so-called great scientists). Often, these motives conflict — with the motives or directions of other people — and friction ensues. Desire and greed are often involved with the motives that people have (and desire and greed tend to function from — and “as” — the reactions that they are psychologically). One’s mind, too, can harbor conflicting motives… conflicting directions to pursue or go in.
A very wise mind, however, is involved with a measureless directionlessness. To observe purely, without tainted motives or covert conditioning influencing what is seen, requires a highly unprejudiced mind that does not merely perceive via fragmentation and limitation. Looking in a certain direction — which most all of us tend to do — by its very action (or, rather, reaction) precludes other directions and is always limiting and partial. Even precise scientists are limited — in their own fields and by their own (learned) processes, habits, prejudices, and procedures — and most would likely laugh if one suggested that they consider directionlessness. However, a truly sagacious mind would perceive the limitation and fragmentation that motives and directions inevitably bring with them; such a wise mind may then go beyond mere motive (and beyond mere direction).
A mind that perceives beyond merely having a “motive” or “psychological direction” must be a very dynamic mind. To look (at times) beyond mere motive or beyond specific desire takes tremendous intelligence and great purity. Directionless is not a stagnant state that one mesmerizes oneself in; rather, it is a causeless explosion of awareness without mere motive and without the influence of psychological conditioning. It truly is an explosion without any cause. It is a movement without any direction. Greed and desire have nothing to do with it; greed and desire are of motive; greed and desire always involve a specific direction.
There is a vast difference between a mind that often is of directionlessness and a (common) mind that always functions by way of motive and direction. Of the two mentioned in the aforementioned sentence, one of the two always (without exception) reacts (via motives and directions set up by limited influences); the other, of the two — though it also often reacts and is choicelessly aware of the reactions — may often go beyond that… such that it exists with (and “as”) motiveless perception (beyond borders). Only one of the two can ever perceive and understand the whole (instantly, without mere sequential process); the other must be caught in time-bound, sequential parameters that manifest as fragmentation and limitation.
The beauty of real ecstasy occurs only when harmful (i.e., fallacious) ways are finished while true joy blossoms without motive.
Interesting and thought-provoking post, Tom. Love that word, directionlessness! Having recently retired early in life, hubby and I are trying to live and enjoy life wherever it takes us. I’d like to think we are trying to live directionlessness, but I find that might not be so simple. But it is fun trying!
I am retired too! 🙂 It is easy to misunderstand what directionless may mean; plus labeling something, like “directionlessness” itself, tends to make it into a limited, conceptual thing in the mind, which it certainly isn’t. I have a number of interesting hobbies (photography and blogging being two of them) and those do not have to be eliminated whatsoever for directionlessness to occur.
So glad that you found the post interesting! 🙂
Imagine how many things could change if people lived directionless? How interesting. Science, technology or anything, the imagination could flow. Who knows where we could be today if people could just follow what if we tried this? Too much red tape or risk of losing funding for it though.
Yes! David Bohm was an internationally known, famous quantum mechanics scientist (whom i used to talk to personally in one on one conversations) who was very interested in this kind of thing. The book “Wholeness and the Implicit Order” is one of the works he has done that may reflect on this somewhat.
I looked him up, sounds interesting. And you were friends with him, wish I had friends like that! What great conversations you must have had!
He was special and different. I really miss the guy! And many of the best scientists are looking into a version of Bohmian Mechanics (at the quantum level) again.
Great post Tom. Fab photo too!
Thank you, Darren! 🙂
Interesting post and terrific photo!
Thanks, Belinda! 🙂 Very glad that you liked both!
Pingback: JM Photo Challenge – Books |
Thank you, Tom for sharing your thoughts with us, well said.
Very timely post Tom, and outstanding photography!