If you don’t understand what living is, deeply and passionately, then you will not understand about physical death. A man (or woman) who often is psychologically dying to the dead past, to corrupt (limited) conditioning, to illusory limititations, and to robotic traditions and habits… is someone who is deeply living.
By the way, regarding physical death, it’s not what you have been told. It’s not any of the crap that people have dished out to you. It’s not that your special human soul floats away to a bliss with an anthropomorphic god or gods. It is not that when you are dead, you are dead (and that that’s it); it is not that you are reincarnated to some kind of better life; it is not that you go to some kind of heaven or hell; it is not that you float around like a ghost or specter, looking down upon everyone else. It is not what you have been told (by others). So what happens? One must find out. Intelligence must find out. I certainly am not going to tell you. It’s for deep perception to find out (and discover); it’s not for being told (for people to merely robotically believe or not believe). Again… it’s not for being told.
The dictionary defines “discrete” as, ‘individually distinct, separate, discontinuous.” For most of us, our education primarily taught us how to function with separate, discontinuous things (in ways that helped one to be triumphant and successful). For millions of years, we have been functioning largely on the basis of performance and manipulation involving separate things. The fact is, however, that not one thing in our existence is truly distinct, truly separate. Such distinction and separation is only illusory and unreal. It is like the left hand thinking that it is separate from the right hand; it is like you thinking that you are separate from the people in another so-called country.
We distinguish things by making distinctions according to their attributes and properties. That is a function of the thinking process. However, the thinking process is geared toward survival, pleasure, individual success, and fulfilling essential needs; it is not geared toward perceiving the truth, perceiving the whole. In a truly wise and intelligent person, thinking occurs when it is necessary for fulfilling basic, essential needs, but it is often left in the background while deeper, holistic perception occurs. (There is no legitimate technique or man-made method — that involves time — that can take you to that pristine, timeless dimension.) Deep perception exists beyond the cold, fragmentary nature of thought/thinking. (Mere thinking basically sees things in only piecemeal ways.) With deep perception comes intense compassion, caring, and the lack of indifference.
Attachment is very prevalent in most peoples’ lives. Most people are heavily attached, psychologically, to a large number of things. Attachment can give one a sense of security, safety, stability, and self-identification. People are, for example, attached to their religion, their country, their political propensities, their spouse, their house, property, and possessions. People are attached to their beliefs, their traditions, their opinions, and their prejudices. People can be attached to practicing some robotic, absurd method of meditation or mindfulness that they engage in often and that they think is just phenomenal. People are often attached to their conceptions of others and of certain groups; many are attached to the habit of endlessly pursuing pleasure; many are attached to seeing everything with (and “as”) preconceived labels and words. People, over the ages, have been attached to their anthropomorphic mental obtrusions of God and of divine beings. Many people are attached to existing in (and “as”) a competitive way of life, competing against others habitually (without question). Many are attached to football games and other sporting events (that glorify competition and survival of the fittest). Most people are heavily attached to their own images of self, that self (having a name) and being of a supposed real center.
This is all well and good… but, really, it may not be so very well and good. True freedom and profound wisdom exist beyond myriads of accepted attachments (however safe they may erroneously make one feel). Being bound by attachments causes the mind to be bound within limitations. A limited brain is not, under any circumstance, likely to be visited by the unlimited. (You can’t put the ocean in a goldfish bowl.) Little wonder, then, why so few people are ever visited by that sacrosanct eternity. Beliefs, that so very many people are deeply attached to, tend to divide the world causing much friction, fragmentation, turmoil, and even wars (which people die in, with all of the concomitant suffering). Most of us ardently cling to our attachments, because without them we are essentially nothing psychologically (and we are so very afraid of being nothing).
Innumerable many of us, without question, accept our limitations, accept our attachments, and accept our fragmentary lifestyle (which isn’t really living whatsoever). Improper education in the past, really, had a lot to do with it. We were taught to accept words (as symbols) as basically equivalent to the real thing; we exist as words and we worship these words. The world’s climate is changing rapidly like wildfire (due to human negligence and indifference). Most of us (because of habits and attachments) continue to live in (and “as”) the same patterns that have caused the problems in the first place. We must wake up and fundamentally change.
Listening is very important in life. How you listen matters tremendously. Most people listen with — and through — the background of their conditioning (that stems from past accumulation). With that accumulation, they listen… which really isn’t listening at all. They then walk around mistakingly thinking that they are “free” and “open.”
True wisdom may be beyond the mere accumulation of patterns (from the past). It may involve deep insight beyond what you merely have been told and accumulated. Insight is timeless; what is timeless is not of mere piecemeal accumulation (which is in time). Peacemeal accumulation is time.
Each wish came upon an intangible dream. All dreams are intangible, being the virtual aspirations or speculations that they are. In a world past dreamers, he or she who sees things as they are (beyond distortion), ironically, does not merely see things… because things are of thought’s plurality that is largely illusory and superficial (though important to respond to accordingly at times).
Life, despite what most people think, isn’t a series of things. Life is beyond the plurality of appearances that are tricks upon the mind. Life is not wholeness either, for such wholeness, for most, is just another thing, just another abstraction to dream about.
While in the garden, the handsome blue Hostas and the attractive, purple Columbine flowers were not separate from the mind; then they were beyond mere labeling and definition; spontaneously, they transformed into what cannot be described or dreamed about. Then beauty was the “observing” and was beyond mere “observing.”
In that garden, there was careful “observing” and there was “beyond observing.” The two danced in harmony beyond fabricated plurality and wholeness. Curious, the ants, as to what moved past them in a vastness.
The elderly Lo Zu walked through a long, beautiful meadow and came near to the local village. He saw a group of youth sitting near a fenced garden and ambled near to them while holding on to his sinuous, meandering cane. As he walked, he smiled at the majestic, wonderous blue sky and at the beautiful trees dancing in the light breeze that he was not (in any way) apart from. Many of the young people looked rather bored, and excitement and wonderment were missing from their eyes. Lo Zu said to them, “When i was your age, i too sometimes would get bored; I too found myself lacking in exciting things to do. Now, in my elderly age, there is no boredom; there is only harmony and bliss.”
“What is your secret?, one of the youth asked.
Lo Zu then said, “One went beyond what all of the others said about life, self, and consciousness. The root of suffering was discovered and perceived.”
Some of the youth inquired, “What is the root of suffering?”
Lo Zu replied, “The ‘I,’ the ‘me,’ with all of its pretense and chicanery. The ‘I’ or the ‘me’ helps create a space between what is considered a “center” and the rest of the world (even including between a thought of a supposed center-controller and thinking). However, for example, thoughts and thinking are what consciousness is (as they occur), including the concept of ‘I’ or ‘myself.’ There is, though, a beautiful intelligence beyond and much greater than mere thoughts and thinking. Such intelligence is of a wholeness and transcends the petty concepts of ‘I’ and ‘me.’ Such intelligence transcends psychological suffering/boredom, mere words as labels, and gross limitation; what is whole and immense is not dominated by what is false and limited. Mental suffering is false and limited. Only when one clings to the limited is the intelligence of the whole not apparent. Look at everything beyond fragments, symbols, and images… and perhaps that intelligence will manifest. Clinging to what the ordinary, every-day people tell you… may be like clinging to garbage. Even clinging to ‘collected experiences’ (robotically) is childish and unnecessary. Cling in that way if you wish, but as for this elderly being, there is too much bliss here to crave what is fundamentally of the dead past. See the living beauty of life and nature in each instant (without merely always labeling and remembering). Question things, be appreciative of life, perceive with wholeness, and go beyond the ordinary. “
The group of youth thanked Lo Zu and asked him to stop by to visit them again.
As he walked away, he heard one of them say, “He is not like the other elders; he is different; he seems magical. When he looks at you, it is as if he can see right into you.”
When i am out in society sometimes — like grocery shopping, for instance — and see people, sometimes my eyes almost start tearing. One just feels sorry for them. It’s a tough life out there, and many people are really struggling, really suffering. You, if you at all observant, can see it in their eyes. Especially when i see children, i feel something deep inside. They will be living in a world much more difficult to live in than the one that i lived most of my life in. There will be many more people and less space. There will be fewer jobs, more pollution, even more propaganda, and less truly healthy food. The chances of them being educated rightly in a truly decent, alternative (non-mediocre) school with no more than 8 kids in a classroom and with much emphasis on wisdom, compassion, hands-on experiences (like growing vegetables outdoors, exploring nature, and making solar panels), on understanding beyond standard patterns, and on seeing life as a whole… are almost nil.
Then one looks at the adults. Many seem aged and “worn out” before their time. Many show the effects of endless junk food, alcohol, and endless synthetic medications (prescribed by doctors who, these $-oriented days, are more like puppets of the pharmaceutical companies than true counselors about healthy living patterns and natural cures). (Don’t get me wrong, many people need to be on prescription drugs… but not to the extent being dished out in this pill-happy day and age.) Even a lot of our standard vitamins — tons of them really — these days, are largely made from synthetic products (derived from petroleum). For instance, synthetic vitamin E does not come from a natural food source and is generally derived from petroleum products. Synthetic vitamin E (dl-alpha-tocopherol or any variation starting with dl-) is found in many commonly-sold multivitamin supplements, such as Centrum. You can’t help but feel sorry for people when you see what is being done to them. Fragmentation within minds abounds, which inevitably manifests as disorder, indifference, and conflict. It’s a crazy world. Additionally, repercussions happen, and the disorder that ensues deleteriously affects the animals of the world too. (There are good, holistic, magnanimous people too, but there are not nearly enough of them.)
In a big way, one really can’t blame people for what they are. They are a product of their education (or maybe we should say “miseducation”) and their environment. Very few of us really break free, truly intelligently question everything, and stand alone beyond all of the standard, mundane conditioning. Most people psychologically consist of their conditioning. It is very difficult to get people to change fundamentally… not according to any blueprint or pattern, not according to some concocted religion or government, but wisely, independently, and holistically beyond all of the antiquated past. It is sad — it’s tragic really — that so many inevitably end up falling in a rut, stagnating, and then dying. Things could be very different but, so far, the magic isn’t happening to a very great extent. But we could wake up and help change things.
Human beings have dealt with loneliness for generation after generation. Most of us run away from it. We run away from it in many ways. We run away from it through various forms of entertainment. We run away from it by incessantly watching entertaining sports, by going to entertaining religious services, by endlessly socializing, texting, talking on the phone, reading, endlessly watching television, endlessly listening to the radio, and by innumerable other ways. However, it is always there, waiting around the corner. It is there waiting and once again manifesting. Mankind has been avoiding it for eons. It can even manifest in a person who is among a large group of people. Many, as a means to coping with it, even engage in alcohol and drugs.
Few of us are really involved with loneliness beyond mere conflict. Instead of merely being in conflict with loneliness, by constantly running away from it (as most incessantly do), can one realize that one actually is what it is, without merely thinking that it is what one “has” (as some loneliness)? If we often merely try all of the innumerable escapes from loneliness, it will always be there waiting and popping up again and again. Obviously, it is great to socialize and such. But to merely constantly run away from loneliness may merely feed its flames.
Aloneness is far different than loneliness. The root meaning of alone is ‘all one.’ (How can the mind be ‘all one,’ or whole, if it is primarily composed of fragmented thoughts and if it is constantly escaping from — and in conflict with — the loneliness that it is?) With aloneness, there is contentment/joy/deep perception without needing outside influences. It may occur to one who is a light to himself (or herself). Bliss without endless motives may be indicative of the intelligence of aloneness. It is not a selfish intelligence. It is an intelligence that involves compassion and care for all. True aloneness is beyond propaganda. True aloneness does not blindly jump on the bandwagon just to fit in. True aloneness perceives beyond the inner and outer separation that so many others have accepted from so-called leaders and superiors.
Clarity in terms of the mind. What does it mean? Have you ever pondered over it or considered it deeply and seriously? Most people have not pondered over it. The dictionary defines clarity as: ‘The quality of being coherent;’ it also defines it as: ‘The quality of purity.’ Coherency in minds, in the manner we are writing about, means order. If the mind has significant fears, prejudices, beliefs (which tend to separate and divide people), and is tied down to dead (though fully accepted) second-hand traditions, is that order? If one is at all honest… a mind harboring many of such things — as what it actually “is” — probably is not of order.
Purity (in terms of mental clarity) likely means that the mind is not heavily conditioned, that the mind has not been deeply molded and contaminated by others. It means that the mind can look in a pristine way, beyond what was spoon-fed into it. Pretty much all of us were spoon-fed (mentally) from the day we were born. And most of us fully accept what was poured into us, because it is so very easy to do so. Most like the easy way, the run-of-the-mill way. It is so easy to fit in and to do as everyone else does and to think as everyone else does. It is so very comfortable. We love to imitate; “everyone else is doing it; it must (therefore) be safe and right.” But is it?
Here it is being suggested that a lot of what they pumped into us may be very fundamentally wrong and highly erroneous. Even the very fundamental nature of time that they gave us may be very wrong and largely fallacious. The very nature of our relationship — that they spoon-fed into us — involving thoughts and involving each other… may be very fallacious and not of real and true order. So what is one to do? A disorderly mind, seeking order, will usually find (and discover) according to that disorder. Non-clarity (i.e., non-coherency) cannot easily perceive clarity and order. (Innumerable minds of disorder often cling to primitive, fragmentary traditions of disorder, ardently claiming they are of order; then the endless wars and conflicts between groups of opposing people — with their separate ideologies — continue and go on and on.)
Real clarity may mean standing alone beyond all of the contamination. It may mean that one — without depending upon others — has to work diligently to see (for oneself) what is actually taking place. It likely involves seeing beyond what was poured into you; it likely involves asking the right questions (that are serious and of great meaning to life, wholeness, and dignity). It likely involves seeing beyond all of the second-hand patterns and endless words, labels, and feelings of individual separation (from others). It likely does not involve mere blind conformity, unquestioning acceptance, allegiance, or being mesmerized by authorities (by groups) and their ideas. There are even classes on mindfulness or on meditation that (through various systems and methods) purportedly get you to be mindful or get you to meditate. However, methods and systems just make the mind more imitative, more robotic, more second-hand, and more residual.
Clarity is purity, (plain and simple). It is not about being adulterated by the ordinary and the run-of-the-mill. In clarity is great beauty, love, and eternity. But don’t take my word for it. Find out. To find out there has to be great order of the mind, but not order according to what authorities say, not order according to some second-hand, man-made structures. (Or perhaps you just want to go on blindly accepting, adhering, and repeating the same old things.) It is so very easy to repeat and to fit in. It is altogether a different story when it comes to real purity, deep awareness, and profound coherence.
To truly be alive is a real art. It involves a lot of depth, understanding, and compassion. (By the way, psychological depth, great understanding, and compassion are not three separate things; they are all one.) Most of us have been indoctrinated with superficial second-hand patterns, thoughts, and traditions. Most of us live in (and “as”) an endlessly repetitious series or sequence of thoughts. That is what we call “living.” However, that may not be “living” whatsoever. Most people say that they are doing fine and are OK, but, in reality, they are not. They are full of fears, uncertainty, depression, dull mundaneness, and one series of stale thoughts after another.
Thoughts are stale. All thoughts stem from the past and are protrusions (i.e., projections) from (and of) that past. Patterns from the past can be rearranged to seem rather new but, fundamentally, they consist of the stale past. From that past, we look. Most people look through — and from — images of the past that they hold (and are). They recognize, they re-cognize things… such that they perceive according to the symbols and patterns of thoughts that they have absorbed and have clung to in (and “as”) the past. Thoughts are merely symbols and, therefore, are very limited and circumscribed. Symbols, being representations, are always residual, limited, and rather stale. However, most of us were indoctrinated to live in (and “as”) thoughts. Little wonder why so many say that they are enjoying life when, really, they are not. It’s like hugging or clinging to a Stop Sign and saying that the sign fills you with joy. You might fool some people, but you can’t fool me. That Stop Sign, like a thought, is a symbol, and a symbol is always of the past, limited, fragmentary, and nothing to get in rhapsody about. Most of us are of a consciousness that goes from one series of thoughts to another, never looking or perceiving wholly beyond thought/thinking. We go from one sequence of symbolic images to another. Even when we are out in nature, we perceive things through (and with) the screen of thought/thinking; we see things according to mere pre-learned patterns and labels; this may not truly be “seeing” at all. And yet we think that we are doing fine.
Remaining as stale, mundane, second-hand thoughts and patterns is never fine. It is the road to mediocrity, dejection, and robotic-repetition. One has to have the moxie, the fortitude, the guts, and the integrity to go beyond the indoctrination that was implanted in (and “as”) one. But most people are unwilling to do that. They are caught and find it easy to remain rather dead in the net or web of second-hand circumstance. Intelligently going beyond mere thought/thinking is frightening to them, because thought thinking is what they are; it is what they have accepted and is what they cling to.
Thinking in an orderly fashion is very useful at times. However, it is prudent to often go beyond thought/thinking. To merely remain in (and “as”) thought/thinking is sorrow. Period.
Boundless, in the dictionary, means ‘beyond limits’ or ‘having no boundaries.’ That sacred energy, that eternal flame beyond man-made descriptions, may indeed be of a boundlessness beyond the limited, and, hence, beyond the bounded conceptions and images of mankind. People tend to pretty much exclusively perceive and think about things in terms of limited labels, circumscribed patterns, fragmentary constructs, and sequential images and descriptions. All of these are, by their intrinsic nature, fragmentary, isolating, and limited. Thought/thinking is of this limitation. It has not changed in us, fundamentally, for millions of years. Four million years ago, we perceived via limitation and conflict. And four million years later; we are still perceiving basically via limitation and conflict. We still primarily mostly look with separation at all things; one still continuously perceives oneself as being a separate, independent individual.
Even most of the scientists are caught in this fragmentary, circumscribed, piecemeal way of looking at things. Even though they have some interesting theories and discoveries, they still are perplexed about the nature of things. They have their conflicting theories and divisions of thinking about things. The various so-called religions, too, have their divisions and conflicting theories and stories. Concerning them, people still make and construct stone images to impress others by, just as what was done many millennia ago. Though we’ve changed tremendously technologically, we’ve — most of us anyway — stayed fundamentally the same inwardly (i.e., psychologically) for eons. We still look at things via separation, limitation, circumscribed labels, and conflict. Most of us have a lot of deep-seated fears and psychological problems. Yet we think that we are highly evolved.
Most of us were enthusiastically programmed to react, perceive, and continue to function just like everyone else, both outwardly and inwardly. Heaven forbid if you began to look at things in a whole, new way. But a whole, new way was how Einstein came up with some of his brilliant works; and, believe me, he understood far more than what he revealed in his published and popular works.
The question is: Can one perceive — in a fundamentally different way — without exclusively depending upon mere (limited) patterns (that you were molded to contain)? To answer that question truly and deeply, consciousness needs to go through a radical change. All of the stuff that was hammered into you, throughout your past, has to be put aside or (rather) psychologically died to. When one truly transcends all of the illusory separations, limitations, fragmentation, and division, then real intelligence and compassion emerge. But it isn’t compassion that “you” “have”; it is compassion; it is of the whole, not of a separate “you.”
This Allosaurus Dinosaur Leg-bone was sliced and polished, revealing the now crystallized canals (ducts or channels) that used to transport air (and some blood) through the system; they stored oxygen within their bones, which was a very advanced system (superior to what mammals currently have).
There is chronological time — time by the watch — such as when you have to be at the doctor’s office at a certain designated time, or the fact that you have to be at work at a certain time. However, there is also psychological time, such as when the brain imagines (to itself) that it will be less fearful in the future. Psychological time often departs from real, substantive frameworks and oftentimes flows into the fictitious, the imaginary, and the illusory.
Take the psychological time-based situation of a typical person imagining that he or she will be less greedy in the future, for example. The person imagines the greed (that he or she is now) as being separate from what he or she actually is. It is something that can be controlled from a distance, to his or her typical perspective anyway. Then, a separate “I” (that is projected to be separate from the greed) is formulated to go beyond the greed, controlling it, over time. (The imagined separation from the greed is, itself, a form of greed.) That person does not fully perceive that he or she is not separate from what the greed actually is. So the typical brain separates itself from greed (during the very distorted perception of greed) and then imagines or projects a state of being beyond it, or of controlling it. The typical brain sees greed as what it has, or as what it can control, rather than as what it actually is. It additionally projects a “should be” (i.e., an imagined state beyond greed) and strives to get to that imagined point over time.
A mind of deep, holistic intelligence deals with this differently. With such a mind, psychological time is not so much a factor. It instantly sees (without the movement of time being a factor) the greed as being what it is… not as being what it “has” (or what it is contending with or controlling). Here, the perceiver is “that which is perceived”; the controller is not separate from the controlled; really, there is no controller in this situation (and, really, there never truly was, in all actuality). The greed, by the way, likely dissipates without effort due to holistic intelligence (which has its own energy and profound order); or it never occurs much in the first place. (The word “has” in the previous sentence does not mean or imply ownership from a distance. By the way, ownership from a distance implies greed, doesn’t it?)
Here is another extremely interesting time-oriented point. Many top scientists — Einstein among them, who formulated the philosophy of spacetime, with space and time being one thing — are now supportive of the Block Universe perspective. It is also referred to as Eternalism. It, in one fell swoop (and whether you like it or not), nullifies the notion of free-will; however, it does not nullify the responsibility that each one of us has for the whole, for all others, and for the entire environment. Watch the following short video if you are not familiar with it. (You can watch it for a time.)
Motivation is oftentimes a very good thing. Your teachers wanted you to have plenty of it when you were a youth in elementary school. Most people look at a man or woman who has very little gumption as being rather mediocre and unproductive. Motivation helps one to accomplish things; oftentimes these things are necessary for good health, community prosperity, and the planet’s wellbeing.
It is prudent to have motivation for one’s so-called self and immediate family. It would be even more prudent to engage in motivation that helps the environment and the planet as a whole. Too many people were educated and conditioned to have motivation for the “self” while, all along, not seeing this self as including and being other life forms and the planet as a whole. Most of us were educated and conditioned to strive for a small, fragmentary self that is (for the most part) considered to be something apart from the whole. Most of us graduate from school, being so very proud of our graduation, and then go out (conditioned and programmed to have motivation for fragmentary concepts of rather separate selves and separate groups); then we ruthlessly compete, struggle, disagree over our separative images and beliefs… and continue to cling to motivational patterns that are isolating, divisive, and devoid of real, holistic compassion.
Although motivation has its place, it is wise to go beyond motivation at times. Thought/thinking is always tied to motivation. Thinking occurs for a reason (usually a very conditioned reason); thinking always involves moving in some direction, acquiring, avoiding, or getting… (all involving motivation). However, a very intelligent mind can see the limitation and the fragmentary nature of motivation; then, if it is lucky, it can sometimes be where motivation is not necessary, where motivation is no longer needed. This motivationless state is where thinking is transcended (without effort) and put aside (for the time being); it is of a causeless bliss and joy.
Can one, out of psychological strife and motivational effort, bring such a state into being? Of course not. The psychological ending of conditioning does not merely depend upon motivational patterns. Thinking (as internal, psychological motivation) has its place, but wisdom goes beyond what is of no use in terms of wholeness and profound awareness. One of intelligence does not set aside a special time to “go beyond motivational thinking” or to “indulge in meditation.” It is not what one can arrange to happen via set motivational undertakings. It happens naturally, spontaneously, without pre-programmed calculation… or it does not happen at all.
Pearling is what occurs in aquarium plants that — when in enough light — emit bubbles of oxygen into the water (that naturally stream upward during photosynthesis). The photo is of some of my Corkscrew Vals pearling. All plants, terrestrial plants included, emit oxygen into the atmosphere during photosynthesis — thank goodness for us — as a natural by-product.
We have space psychologically and, for most of us, it is very limited. Everyone seems to have a space between the so-called central “I” (or “me”) and the “other” thoughts that this “I” is purportedly thinking. People do not realize that this “I” (or “me”) is neither central nor truly “in control” of the so-called “other” thoughts. The image of a center is just a projection of the psychological process and (as such) it is not truly manipulating anything. However, unfortunately, minds conditioned and taught to perceive through this illusory mode of operation tend to be very uncomfortable about going beyond it. The “I” was not designed for one to have insight and holistic perception; the “I” formed as an extension for self-preservation. Preservation and care for the body are crucial and very necessary. “Thinking” was to tool to help in regard to that. But then thought began to make itself out to be the essence of the organism. Then it began projecting the “I,” the “me,” imagining the “I” or the “me” to be a central regulatory entity that dominates or produces the so-called subservient thoughts.
People have, psychologically, created a space between the “I” and other thoughts, (thoughts that the “I” allegedly manipulates). They have space between the perceiver and “that which is perceived.” Such (limited) space is often internal (i.e., between the “me” and the other thoughts). It also, all too often, deals with the external… “me” separate from the animal that is hunted by me.
Going beyond the “I” due to keen insight is what negates these false constructs within the mind. Going beyond the “I,” the “so-called center,” the “me,” is not dangerous. On the contrary, it is only a very intelligent, aware mind that does so. And in so doing, it transcends friction, separation, conflict, illusory fabrications, and internal falsities. Then the body and the mind are in perfect harmony beyond the need to control. This lack of control is not chaos; on the contrary, it is an orderly movement involving insight from a profound whole.
When most people observe, they are observing fragmentarily, with — and from — learned separation. They are observing through a conditioned screen of thought/thinking (involving labels, categorization, and separative distance). This separative structure is of a very crude nature and it is very limited. Such limitation allows very little room for true joy and insight.
Deep compassion occurs when the mind transcends the illusoriness of the supposedly separate “central I.” When other life forms are not merely seen from a separative distance, then a real (much more profound) kind of intelligence manifests; it may involve a space that is not limited. This manifestation is of order and right action. Such right action is not merely a series of dull, learned routines reoccurring as mundane, dead-from-the-heart-up reactions.
The following is not meant to offend those who pray. If you are into “praying,” please read this as objectively as possible.
Praying is still what a lot of people do. Why do people pray and what does praying involve? We must be careful not to overly or subjectively analyze it, since (psychologically) the analyzer is not something truly separate from the analyzed.
People who pray will tell you that they are praying to God, to what they consider or think/feel God to be. Fundamentally, in all actuality, they are praying to an image (of what their thoughts consider God to be). This image is a protrusion of their thinking process. It is a product and fabrication of thought/thinking. One of the associative feelings or suppositions regarding this projected image, regarding what “God” is considered to be, involves attributes of power, dominance, (and all of this with a heavily anthropomorphic bent). In other words, this image of God — within people, constituting part of their minds — consists of human (often fatherly) attributes; these images, for instance, tend to be formulated of human attributes involving such things as great strength, power, endurance, fortitude, fairness, awareness, and keen judgment. (Most people do not harbor internal images of a lazy, indifferent, weak God. Most brains do not harbor associative constructs tying images of God to inefficiency, indolence, and to a complete lack of awareness.)
Many ardently cling to this image involving domination and power — whom they call “God” — and will insist that it is more than a self-projected image that they carry. Curiously, if one examines honestly, there is another image that they carry that (coincidentally) also involves great domination and power. Do you realize what it is? It is the image of the self. It is the image of the “I” and/or the “me.” However, most of us do not see it for what it is (i.e., a projected, concocted image); most of us see it (or feel it) to be the permanent, separate, central orchestrator and core regulator of all of the other thoughts. Most of us see it as what has true domination and power; it (to us) is what is having domination and power over the “other” thoughts (and is separate from them). (So there exists domination and power regarding “God” and domination and power involving the “I” or the “me.”) We don’t see the “I” for what it really is… another protrusion of thought/thinking that (in reality) is neither powerful, dominant, nor truly central. However, most all of us cling to this psychological structure because it fits in well with what everyone else has absorbed and accepted as legitimate. We evolved from primitive hominids in an environment where domination and power were critical and extremely important. Following leaders of power — or forces of power — was critical and necessary way back then, wasn’t it? We haven’t dropped those old-fashioned ways.
A few additional points: So when people pray to God concerning things that need to be done for others, for instance, are they pointing out things that this God may be negligent about understanding or that this God is not quite fully adequate at being aware of? If mentally handicapped people and animals are not gifted enough to pray to what may involve dominance and power, does this mean that they are largely plum out of luck? When a person prays, may it be that that person feels that he or she is involved in a direct pipeline to something considered powerful and dominating (i.e., which — let’s face it — is that person’s image of God) with, all the while, this pipeline being something considered special? And could it be that the previous question implies that psychologically imagining that one has such a pipeline, in oneself, nourishes a form of self-aggrandizement, blowing up the ego of the one so imagining?
Personally, one does not pray in the traditional sense. One rolls up one’s sleeves. My prayer — if it is any form of prayer at all (which it really isn’t) — is the “doing.” I worked throughout life with the handicapped, with the mentally disadvantaged, and with those in real need. If we perceive with real intelligence and understanding, then compassion is there, the sacred is there. But it is not of dominance and power, and all of that traditional, projected, nonsensical crap.
Most of us equate nothingness with worthlessness, with triviality, with insignificance. We are terrified of psychological nothingness, and when nothingness occurs, psychologically, we hurriedly run away from it with chattering thoughts, beliefs (that are extensions of thought/thinking), suppositions, and all kinds of entertainments, including television shows (with their sports and movies), radio shows, and internet correspondences. We were all taught to be something, to constantly pursue things with motives to achieve more and more (and still more). Most of us are internally prejudiced against psychological nothingness; it tends to frighten us and we automatically run away from it.
We were taught (directly or indirectly) that the “I,” the psychological center, the ego, the inner “controller” is very substantial. To most of us — let’s face it — it is the most substantial thing of all. Everything revolves around the “I” and the “me”; to suggest that the “I,” the “me,” is very insubstantial and false would be considered blasphemy by most people. (Such talk goes against their core values, their core essence.) Has your mind ever significantly pondered about what the “I,” the “me,” actually is? Most people don’t bother to ponder about it but they merrily go on referring to the “I” and the “me” and habitually function with such manifestations (that they didn’t bother to deeply ponder about).
Without thought/thinking, there can be no internal “I” or “me.” The “I” and the “me” are dependent upon thought/thinking. Without “thinking,” there is no “I” or “me.” The “I” and the “me” are protrusions of thought/thinking and are (in fact) fabrications (i.e., extensions) of the thinking process. The mind can perfectly function just fine without the inner notion of “I” or “me,” and can often do so with compassion, holistic awareness, empathy, and intelligence. In fact, a brain that exclusively functions with or from an “I” or “me” is a brain of separation, isolation, limitation, and division. A brain of separation, isolation, limitation, division, and imitation, may be considered to be intelligent by many people, but it may not be very intelligent. The “me” is considered separate from other thoughts, people, and organisms. It functions from (and “as”) a limited, separative, isolating space that thought/thinking has concocted. It may be that this concocted limited, isolating space is what is truly illusory and (hence) essentially (in a very limited way) nothing. And it may be that a rather egoless mind — without often depending on projections of “I” and/or “me” — can function as (or “with”) a vast, boundless emptiness. Such a vast emptiness (i.e., vast nothingness) is beyond motive and may be sacred, timeless, inclusive, immeasurable, highly sensitive and intelligent, and of a bliss far from what petty minds can fabricate. A brain consisting of a limited, little ego made up of a learned and fabricated “I” tends to be rather superficial and illusory; a mind of a truly holistic, vast, dynamic, immeasurable nothingness tends to be of true intelligence, understanding, compassion, and deep perception.
Can consciousness actually be in contact with the infinite when such a consciousness always functions with (and “as”) the limited? It cannot. The mind can think or feel that it is in contact with the infinite, but that is mere reaction and not the actuality. It is immensely easy for the mind to delude itself and trick itself into believing and thinking all sorts of things. A consciousness of fragmentation, for example, can convince itself that it is of wholeness and freedom… while, in actuality, that is not the case whatsoever.
Unfortunately, most people are quite content to merely — in very limited ways — accept the traditions and beliefs that were handed down to them. (Curiously, this is even the case with many of those writing on meditation or mindfulness in books, blogs, and such, as if they have transcended something, when fundamentally they have not.) Most people in limitation — which is of confinement — feel “safe.” They do not truly reexamine all that they were taught. They do not fully question what was spoon-fed to them. (Many assume that they have broken from the standard, run-of-the-mill consciousness but, fundamentally, they have not.) They, among countless others, were taught to conform, obey, absorb, accept, and adhere to all of the traditional outlooks and images. Is a consciousness raised in such a way, and programmed in such a way, much more than a bundle of reactions?
One reaction after another, in life, is limitation, is fragmentation. Holistic contact is much more than mere reaction, but far too many people are merely reacting and are not involved with (or “as”) what is beyond. It is beyond what they spoon-fed into you. It is beyond beliefs, conditionings, and symbolic, sequential thoughts and ordinary feelings (which are all limited reactions). Though the physical organism is important to maintain in time, the old “you” cannot merely psychologically exist (for that immensity and nameless eternity to visit).
We all suffer in the journey of life. The rich and the poor suffer. The rich may think that they suffer less, but what are they rich in? If they are well-to-do with lots of money but are short on real compassion, insight, and wisdom, are they truly rich? Most of us were miseducated on what true richness in life entails; then we go through life bereft of the real treasures, empty of real substance.
Animals (other than our own species) also suffer. Many are currently suffering because of the overindulgence of man… too much cement, too much pollution, too much loss of habitat. There is also the competition in nature between the many animals; many have to struggle among themselves for survival. It’s a tough world out there.
When one looks with barriers, through psychological walls of separation (as one has been mistaught to), then one doesn’t do much about the suffering. Ironically, these very walls (i.e., psychological walls) tend to enclose and greatly contribute to one’s own so-called personal suffering.
True intelligence not only helps much suffering to end in the exterior world — via compassion and action (because “others” aren’t so separate any longer) — but also transcends suffering internally (or psychologically, so to speak). When a mind goes beyond crude ways of perceiving, then a totally different dimension may take place (that is — to a large degree — beyond the friction and pain of regular life). A mind that consists of reaction after reaction is bound to suffer; a mind that does not always react like a programmed robot may transcend much suffering.
Ambrose Bierce defined “decide” as ‘to succumb to the preponderance of one set of influences over another.’ But let’s inquire further. What is it that is doing the “succumbing”? It may actually be — which many people will not care to face — that conditioned reactions help to constitute what one set of influences does over another… and that the knee-jerk concept of “I” or “me” is basically a conditioned protrusion of thought that occurs later (as it falsely appears to take the credit for “deciding”). Additionally, it may be that the conception of “I” or “me,” before any apparent “deciding” takes place, is also merely a learned social projection (of thinking) that is (essentially) unnecessary. Transcending this illusory “center” — that never truly was a center in the first place — takes the intelligence of wisdom. (Such wisdom is of an eternity beyond the falsity of a learned center.)
Are we merely at the mercy of inevitable conditioned responses that render us to be merely rather robotic and computer-like in nature? We say, “Not necessarily.” The (healthy and wise) mind can look holistically, in a manner that is more in-tune with the whole and not merely immersed in (and “as”) fragmentary parts and conditioned robotic reactions. However, there is no “green flag” that pops up in the mind, revealing that one is looking holistically. One cannot “know” that holistic mindfulness is happening. In truth, this may tie into the fact that holistic insight (as profound understanding) is beyond the field of the known.
Real compassion — not the phony kind set up for everyone to see — relies very little on the “I” or the “me.” The poor bloke who is in love with himself (i.e., in love with his “I” and “me”) cares little, for the most part, for others. The real jewel in life may not be what you were taught; it may not be what is construed as being your special center. There is, psychologically, no special center. Thank goodness!
To be fundamentally wrong is one thing. But to be fundamentally erroneous with regard to the basic framework or essence of one’s whole psyche is extraordinarily significant. From the day that you were born, they coddled you with warm words that supported the imagery of a center… a central dominating “controller” that is at the core of consciousness dominating and running everything. However, as we’ve mentioned in past blogs, scientists have split the brain (via splitting the corpus callosum) and have created two separate fields of consciousness. The center is fictitious (yet everyone believes in it).
The repetitive operation of a fictitious center — that is not really central at all — creates much mischief; it is separative, illusory, fragmentary, and power-oriented; it depends upon separative borders; it creates a circumference around itself. It, additionally, is a waste of time and energy. Little wonder why there is so much human havoc in the world. We operate with distorted (mental) equipment. Most humans are “off the beam.” Look at the world around you. Look at the narcissistic, sociopathic leaders in America and the world.
How can stability and harmony deeply exist if the essence of consciousness is based on a false premise? We say things like, “I’m working at improving my memory.” You are your memory… and there is no you separate from memory (using it from a distance). Then we surmise that without a center, we will not be secure in eternity. On the contrary, it is the very clinging to a dominating, illusory center that negates the full and comprehensive understanding of beautiful eternity. Distortion cannot perceive the fundamental nature of eternity clearly.
It is intelligent to be fearful during this Covid-19 thing. Not being fearful would be a form of foolishness and ignorance. Fear has its place. Is one separate from the fear that one has? Well, one doesn’t merely “have” or “own” fear. Psychological fear is actually part of what one is. If that part gets to be too habitual, too excessive, too dominant… then unnecessary disorder manifests. What is it that is going to “get rid” of excessive fear? What is it that is going to “control” fear from a distance? Is it going to be a supposedly separate set of habitual fabricated images and “learned mental patterns” that are designed to think that they are manipulating fears that are “there” (at a distance) to manipulate? (Such supposed psychological distance is fallacious and is a barbaric inheritance that maintains conflict and illusion. The internal psychological distance creates a false duality; it manifests as the “controller” and the supposed separate “controlled.”)
Security is important in terms of being healthy with food, clothing, and shelter. However, in the quest for mere self-oriented security, the mind-heart can become cold, mechanical, robot-like, over-anxious, and dependent upon strange and unethical patterns. Of course, in the present crisis, if you do not have enough food, fear is a very legitimate factor; good governments and groups need to do more to help people; currently, they are not doing enough. When i was young — and not so young — i quit a good number of jobs because i did not feel that what they were doing (or making) in them was ethical. I left quickly without much concern for what may happen to me. I like what Senator Bernie Sanders recently said: “We must break away from the worldview that everybody should try to become a billionaire — and you can lie, cheat, and steal if your goal is to make billions and not pay attention to the suffering of others.”
Life, real life, is so much more than a Monopoly game. Compassion, these days, is not prevalent enough. But $ in people’s brains certainly is. Many cling to the apron strings of $ and security… and the real joy, extraordinary spiritual bliss, and meaning of life, unfortunately, pass them by. (Kudos to truly dedicated medical staff and other critical needs and essential needs people working at risk — selflessly — to help others in these very precarious times.)
We think internal fear is there to manipulate (at some kind of distance) and we think organisms that suffer are merely “there at a distance.” We may have been taught wrongly.
[This post is very similar to a recent post, but reiterating some things is necessary (for it to possibly “sink in”); there are also some new twists.
This will end my posts now for a while (as i had scheduled them); i will take a break (after my recent heart attack) and will not be posting for a while. My cardiologist said that my heart sustained minimal damage, which is good. He said, “Let this be a warning sign.” Warning sign! I was living like a monk and doing everything right! Hopefully, the medication that they are giving me will help keep the bad things from progressing… even though i am no huge fan of Big Pharma.]
Is there a separate controller of thought? Or is such a “separate controller” a product (an extension) of thought itself? Despite what we were taught, it really is the latter. Thought/thinking is a field or sequence of reactions. Positing that a separate controller exists just extends one’s (learned) attachment for some dominating factor, imagined powerful center, or “internal boss.” A very orderly mind can function quite nicely, thank you, without believing in some fictitious (imagined) boss as its “center.”
When someone states “I meditate for 20 minutes a day,” it implies, for one thing, that meditation is something that one can “decide” to do, and it additionally implies that there is a separate “controller” or “regulator,” a dominating entity that makes decisions controlling the thought process. However, the real facts may be that all thoughts are totally conditioned reactions (i.e., symbolic responses to stimuli) and that positing a real “center” or “controller” directly contributes to crude, limited fields of separation. For example, there is the supposed separation between the controller and his or her thoughts. But the inner “controller” is an extension or protrusion of thought and is not at all separate from what thought is. (As we’ve said before, when one speaks to others, one must occasionally use the words “I” or “me,” even though such usage is rather primitive and involves a rather barbaric language system.) However, often thinking (or projecting) a central “I” internally tends to give one a fragmentary, separative view towards others, toward other life forms, and it even creates internal separation/conflict: “me” and the separate thoughts that “I” manipulate. This internal separation then (obviously) extends outwardly into the world. “I” am separate from their suffering… or nature is separate from “me.” The aforementioned sentence is an example of a very primitive, distorted, mindset; such mindsets are, unfortunately, very common, hence all of the indifference and lack of love existing in the world.
True meditation does not occur as a result of some thought process. All thought processes are secondhand (conditioned) reactions (i.e., aftereffects) and a mere secondhand reaction (or set of reactions) can never decide to be what is whole and beyond reaction. Meditation is a thing that occurs uninvited when the mind is not foolishly trying to make it happen. Realizing that one is not something separate from a series of thoughts (as those thoughts are taking place) involves wisdom that allows true meditation to take place. And, as we’ve written before, one cannot merely “know” that one is meditating; it is beyond the field of the known.
The beauty of meditation is that its wholeness and purity may allow the mind to see and exist beyond limitation. That limitlessness is of the eternal, beyond distortion.
Much of what we do involves motive. Our reactions, throughout the day, largely emanate from motives. Oftentimes these motives are learned (i.e., absorbed) habitual responses, and the end-products (that they unfold into) usually are rather mundane and ordinary. The ramifications of this tend to be conformity, sameness, and a lack of real perception and real creativity.
Such sameness and conformity may not at all be beneficial for life as a whole. Superficial motives often keep one in stagnation, while imitating others. Such habitual motives are a form of inaction and are a wastage of energy. Beliefs stem from motives, and beliefs (with their separative groups) tend to cause division in the world.
The innocent/wise mind, throughout the day, can often look without mere motive. Such looking, such perception, is uncontaminated, whole, and pristine. Seeing beyond the ordinary, it flowers in insights and depth not merely dependent upon direction. Mere motive always has a direction. Such direction corrupts. Only what is beyond direction and motive can, perhaps, commune with the timeless, the immeasurable whole.
To exist as nothing, psychologically, is not an unfavorable, weak state. Going beyond everything that you have been and believe in — instantly, without motive — is one of the most positive things, for it is of innocence, wholeness (beyond fragmentary reactions), and freedom. In fact, always continuing as mere reaction (from the old memory bank of stale ideas and images) is the continuation of sorrow. Sorrow must inevitably occur when mental things are second-hand and are constituted of mere reactions. Of course, thought/thinking must frequently manifest for one to do certain necessary things proficiently, with care. However, remaining in (and “as”) thought/thinking habitually, when such thinking is unnecessary, is sorrow and over-reacting. (It’s like endlessly clinging to a stream of shadows when — with deeper awareness — such shadows can be seen to be superficial and often rather insignificant.)
We, unfortunately, were miseducated to associate internal emptiness with internal poverty. Pure, uncontaminated, psychological emptiness is the most positive action, for it is of a pristine, orderly wholeness; merely being the reaction of thinking, however, is essentially inaction… dullness. Unfabricated emptiness is of a wholeness that is beyond mere sequential reaction in (and “as”) time; in that is vast energy, real freedom.
Hermann Minkowski and Albert Einstein taught us about how space and time are not two entirely different things but are, together, one. However, most people just do not get what that means, psychologically and fundamentally, including a lot of supposedly smart scientists. Years ago, when i was much younger, i used to hang around the quantum physicist Professor David Bohm, whom Einstein fondly called his “spiritual son.” Bohm was a famous scientist in his own right and when we discussed things, i was already well aware of the implications of spacetime and what that meant psychologically and on a larger scale.
Space and time are not two separate entities; together they are one. If you look at nature and people merely with psychological separation, with psychological space, as most people do, that very separation helps to support and produce an abstracted, psychological “I” or “me.” If you perceived without such (learned) separation, the “I” or “me” need not exist (which would be fundamentally way more accurate). If you say, “I will be trying to be ‘good’ so that I can eventually get to heaven,” you are supposing that you are something separate from time (in time)… rather than the actuality of being what time is. Your brain consists of matter (which often functions to react as thoughts), and matter is space, spacetime. Of course, we have to use time (in the physical world) to get to work on time or to be at a specified meeting on time. To use time to get somewhere psychologically or spiritually, however, is largely fallacious. Wishing to advance over time spiritually presupposes that you are “in time” and are not what “time is.” Mentally manufacturing a separation between you and time (except for certain time-oriented physical things, like the ones mentioned… and for using our crude, unfortunate language system) is often a process of wasting energy and is inviting great deception. Both the aforementioned psychological space separation and the psychological time separation are illusory; together, both help to create the fallacious and selfishly separate ego. (One cannot be in communion with the timeless if one is a series of fragments of time that erroneously presuppose that they are “in time” advancing spiritually.)
Eternal and orderly phenomena can exist (in humans) without the ego (i.e., without any psychological center). As we have often suggested, the central ego is essentially fallacious and illusory. Habitually looking from (and “as”) it is an illusion; it is a fallacy that most people habitually cling to. Like a man who thinks that he sees vast water in a desert — you know that age-old mirage — and insists on fishing in it non-stop, stay completely with the ego if you wish.
When discussing things in public with people, we can still politely use the word “I,” while (all the while) being fully aware of its fallacious and deceiving attributes; it is one of the misfortunes of living in a society with a barbaric system of language. Professor Bohm diligently worked on helping develop a more accurate and scientifically evolved system of language, which he called the Rheomode. Later in life, Bohm learned of the Native American Blackfoot language, and also of other members of this Native American language family, all of which are very strongly verb-based and do not divide the world into solid categories (i.e., nouns) but, instead, describe in terms of processes and related movements. Link to short Professor David Bohm Video.
Our neural networks — much like a computer — are hardwired and conditioned to accept and fully believe in a central (free-will oriented) regulatory agent whom we call “I.” This “I” to each of us, seems very concrete, dependable (i.e., always there to control), and stable. We never deeply question whether such a “center” really exists in the first place. I maintain that there is no legitimate “I,” which, of course, seems contradictory, (due to the crude structure and barbaric evolutionary phase of our current language system).
When one talks to people about there being no “I” they tend to feel rather apprehensive, threatened, and psychologically uncomfortable. After all, to them, one is threatening the very core of their psychological framework. Our physical body, the organism, perceives largely through the eyes. The eye tends to be what focuses on and examines things. A similitude exists in us (mentally) between the physical “eye” and our concept of the “I” of the mind. We say that the “I” examines; we say that the “I” perceives; we say it was decided by “me.” The brain’s associative patterns are, in pretty much everyone, deeply hardwired and conditioned to constantly be referring to and depending upon this “I.” (The physiology of the brain is much like a walnut, and scientists have — repeatedly, in different human individuals — surgically divided the two halves, producing two separate fields of consciousness in each skull, each permanently existing with no clue as to what the other half is thinking.) Our conditioning for so many mental things is deeply pre-programmed in us, and many factors, including physical health, past education, brain chemistry, and genetic influences, pretty much nullify any real “free-will” completely, whether we like it or not. We must act — not react — carefully and diligently, and we cannot do that if we believe in a lot of crap that isn’t true. In 1932, Albert Einstein told the Spinoza society:
“Human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free
but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions.”
What we are saying is that this “I,” in a tremendous way, is fallacious and unnecessary. Clinging to it is like clinging to that childhood Raggy Ann Doll that was mentioned years ago in one of my earlier blogs… clinging to it as if it was real, alive, and a dependable pal. We could live perfectly, compassionately, and timelessly without clinging to our fallacious “I”s. Scientists, as was mentioned before in my blogging, have suggested that our universe likely operates in a totally different way than what we think is happening now… and they, the writer maintains, are correct. It was, many years ago, when i understood the fictitiousness of the “I” and the foolhardiness of the concept of “free-will,” when real security, profundity, insight into eternity, and real order came… (and not before).
This life is relatively short — in the few years that we have to live — and if you don’t get it right, via understanding and insight, if you (instead) continue to cling to a lot of rotten, crude fallacies, then the consequences are eternal (and not nearly as sweet as they could be). There is great beauty and timeless splendor in life if life is seen without much illusion.
Neural Networks or maybe just Queen Anne’s Lace … Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2019
Experience… what is it, and why do we exclusively depend upon it? A lot of people say, “I’ve learned from experience”; or they say, “I will learn from my experiences.” Many people go on expensive and lengthy vacations to far distant places to get “exotic experiences.”
Experiencing has its place. However, it is very limited. Many crave “new” experiences… but are such experiences — all based on patterns of recognition — really all that “new”? I am suggesting that fundamentally, intrinsically, they are all very much the same and are not really so “new”; they all depend on — and add to — patterns within the field of the mundane known. (That is why many of us retain a deep, inherent sadness, even though we travel to places that should seem new and exciting. Merely existing as a brain that is based primarily on patterns and the recognition of patterns… is sorrow. But that is what most of us were trained to exist as.) Most of us were brainwashed to crave various “wonderful” experiences (i.e., more and more experiences)… through commercials, magazines, examples in books, and by what friends and relatives say and do. (Experiences are never enough, though, because they are essentially limited. But nobody tells you that.)
Evading experience (on the other hand) can be a very childish thing, wherein one endlessly sits cross-legged, for example, thinking that one is accomplishing something special. (You know… all that phony so-called meditation stuff, which is really a glorified form of self-hypnosis.)
Is the experiencer all so separate from what the experience is? If one examines intelligently, the answer is rather obvious: “No.” We look with (and “as”) accumulated patterns and labels at things, pigeonhole them in the rather musty memory bank system and call the experience “new.” To really see something new, perception itself must be dynamically new, fundamentally different, and not based on old, stale systems (and patterns) of observation. Most people are incapable of that, and you don’t get it by sitting in a corner with your legs crossed. Additionally, you don’t get it by reading traditional so-called “religious” books that have been severely distorted over time.
There is a deep, orderly intelligence that is a true spiritual blossoming that is beyond the thoughts and fabrications of man… beyond all of the rituals, stone temples, and concocted patterns. (Those fabrications are all old, and the timeless, miraculous new does not dwell as them.) Deep intelligence is a dynamic harmony, a deep order that effortlessly flows between experiencing and going beyond experiencing. (Constant experiencing and “accumulating” only builds up the illusion of the self.) The “going beyond experiencing” factor (or dimension) is never planned or mentally arranged for. Deep, spontaneous newness and dynamic creativity are never part of a plan or contrived methodology.
Instead of being images “about things,” can the mind perceive beyond all of the absorbed mental patterns and labels that it has accumulated? In actuality, most minds are a result of the accumulation; (i.e, they actually are the accumulation). This “accumulation” often intrinsically involves “looking at things via separation” as one of its core attributes.
Perception beyond mere pigeonholing can take place. (We are not suggesting that one should not label things; we are suggesting that one need not always be doing it habitually. It takes dynamic intelligence to go beyond robotic habit.) Real perception, beyond the mere separation between subject and object, can take place. However, it takes real innocence, real simple-purity to do that and, unfortunately, the masses are (for the most part) incapable of that. (However, corruption does have its trivial perks.)
The associative patterns of the mind, what are their functions? Do they exist merely for us to acquire, accumulate, attain things (including food and shelter), and differentiate with (and from) an element of separation? Do such patterns dictate — to us — what we see?
We usually look at things through labels, through images that we have learned. A person often distinguishes things (at a distance, separate from himself). The patterns that we hold dictate what we see. However, we are these absorbed patterns; we do not actually hold them; they are not separate from what we essentially are. Real wholeness, real integrity, real love, may involve looking beyond the patterns, beyond the old, stuffy mental accumulations, beyond the labels, beyond the mental separative distance.
Unpremeditated goodness is often rather motiveless in that it disregards mere efforts to satisfy the self. Satisfying the self is crude, gross, unevolved, and is what most people do. There is a goodness that is unattached-spontaneous, free of the illusory ego, simple, beyond fragmentary thought, and innocent in the way it acts. It is not a mere reaction but, rather, something else is involved. That “something else” is the whole, or is a perception of and from wholeness. Wholeness doesn’t depend upon illusory parts. Parts and fragments — especially when they are illusory, and most of them are — are not what wholeness covets. Wholeness is highly intelligent action, though not merely of the intellectual kind. Wholeness is action, not mere reaction.
Mere reaction feeds the self, with all of its gross demands. The self, in fact, is a product of mere reaction. Crude reactions nourish and sustain the self. Without such reactions, the image and repetitious movements of self would not be. Wholeness operates differently than what reactions and fragments entail. In wholeness, a vast intelligence operates. There is little vastness/intelligence in what is fragmentary and isolated.
Orange Fairy Cup Fungus at the base of an Oak Tree, Illinois … Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2019
Quietness and awareness often go together, like a sweet aroma and a flower. A mind that is constantly chattering to itself, repeating what it has learned or absorbed… and then merely habitually re-repeating such things in (remembered) altered mental arrangements and recollections for itself, does not have the pristine energy to look freshly and directly beyond the known. The known is the past — as stored, old patterns of memory — and the beauty of real “newness” cannot take place when mere repetition from (and of) the memory bank takes place.
One cannot practice awareness any more that one can practice real quietness. A profound and living awareness/quietness is never the mere outcome of repetitive, learned procedures or known systems. Profound innocence can occur when one is not filled with what others have taught you to do. It is a motiveless looking, and most people, unfortunately, merely look with (and from) motives. Most are caught in a cause-and-effect framework; they live that way, they work that way, and they are programmed exclusively in that. Real joy seldom occurs in a mind trapped in such repetitive cause-and-effect oriented motives. In the sequence of things, the cause becomes the effect and the effect becomes another cause. To merely be one conditioned after-effect (after another) throughout life (in such a robotic sequence)… may not be real living whatsoever. (It would be wonderful if we could easily disinter such rather cadaverous minds out of the conditioned quagmire that they are in but, alas, it is not easily done.) Of course, we must engage in (and “as”) cause-effect occurrences often; however, to merely be stuck in that mode is a shame. An innocent (naturally quiet) mind can look beyond the crude sequence of things and that is when wholeness (beyond mere ordinary effects) and love really blossom.
Beyond the crude sequence of things… small Eastern Gray Beardtongue wildflower on the forest floor. Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2019
Most people are deeply afraid of intrinsically being nothing. They, deep within, have enormous fear about existing as emptiness. They’ll “try” various meditative techniques to “attain some kind of emptiness that they can control,” but these techniques all depend on time (which is merely a postponement and — really — a duplicitous psychological excuse to use a so-called psychological center to continue to be manipulating and “getting there”). They may conjure up a fabricated emptiness (under their control) and continue to pretend that it is something special (that “they” have); this further reinforces internal possession and, with it, the “I” of domination/possession. Profound emptiness is not merely brought about by any psychological cause, by any psychological effort. However, the exclusive cause-effect mentality has been deeply ingrained within us. That is how most of us operate and that is the only way most of us know how to operate. Psychological — not physical — ending to the known neither requires effort, technique, nor time; really, it is timeless living. Regarding psychological emptiness, it is foolish to run away from it (and it is foolish to fabricate it). (Accurate thinking has its place, but it is only a tool; one part of a conditioned “network of tools” identifying itself as “the controller” is a form of crudity and ignorance.)
The nothingness that most conjure up, unfortunately, is a fabrication. The beauty of true nothingness/emptiness is that… when it actually occurs, the magnificence of wholeness and profound eternity exists. To be deeply afraid of that, then, is delusive and fallacious.
There was a man who was afraid of the emptiness of a flower He ran from that emptiness Ignorance fled from what was the door to immeasurably immense beauty
Flower Power (Emptiness) … Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2019
In order to have psychological fear, psychological time is a fundamental necessity. (Thinking and psychological time are not two separate things.) Without some protrusion of thought about some distant event in the future, there would be no psychological fear. That distance (that the mind fabricates about the future) necessarily involves space (and sequential duration)… which are projected by (and “as”) the mind. “In the future, something terrible might happen.” “In the future, I might not have enough friends.” There may be innumerable fears, such as the two aforementioned ones, that can plague a human’s mind. Then one may say that one would like to get rid of the many fears that one has. Somewhat ironically, the very desire to get rid of these fears is (in a real way) an extension of fear; it (itself) is, in a big way, an extension of (or precursor to) more fear.
Who is dealing (internally) with the fears? If one is looking at the fears with a feeling of control or manipulation, then one is assuming that the fears exist at some distance (to somehow “manipulate”). However, (psychologically, whether we like it or not) the manipulator is not separate from the manipulated; the two are both part of the thought/thinking process… and (in a big way) are not two separate things. Trying to “get rid” of the fear causes the mind to fabricate the controller, the “I” or the “me” who is allegedly separate from the fear.
Many types of sequential thinking (i.e., many forms of sequential thinking) — in most people — trigger thoughts that project (often needless) fear about what may happen in the future (along with thoughts of an “I” or a “me” that will be dealing with things). (Sequential thinking that reflects order is very good; sequential thinking — especially the muddled, psychological kind learned from miseducation — that reflects disorder is bad.) A keen perception that observes this whole process (and that goes beyond fabricating a separate “me” apart from the fear) has gone beyond friction and then has tremendous energy, wholeness, and insight. Insight is timeless energy; most people, unfortunately, waste energy. Timeless energy is beyond the chaos that manifests as mere psychological time. (In true silence there is great energy/insight; however, there is no “I” or “me” who can take one to that silence through the process of sequential time.)
I am a kid trapped in an old man’s body i fly kites i perpetually chase insects and frogs
i still often gaze in wonder through a magnifying glass
i still think that grown-ups are yucky i love watching toads in the woods i keep fish and shrimp as pets and stare at them for hours i hunt fossils and love everything about dinosaurs and prehistoric life i unendingly question and i still learn best away from boring school
To be one series of conditioned responses after another, each and every day — and please excuse me for saying so — is a rather lackadaisical way to be. It merely entails letting what was poured into you (over time, by society) internally flutter around to emerge out again (externally) slightly modified, slightly altered (but essentially being the same-old-thing). It is the way most people are, and it is the way the bureaucrats want you to remain. They want you to emit what was injected into you. The powers-that-be don’t want any Walt Whitmans, John Lennons, or Rosa Parks questioning things. No way! The powers-that-be want to everyone to robotically conform and nicely fit into their prearranged patterns. Period. They want everyone to remain being the cogs in the nice prearranged machine. The powers-that-be are themselves part of that humongous machine and they will use domination, force, and will blindly do anything to preserve it. Reacting, day in and day out, only like you were programmed (or miseducated) to react… is a very mechanistic/machine-like way of being. Most people do not question enough. Most people do not perceive enough.
Real freedom exists beyond mere conditioned responses. To dwell in (and “as”) real freedom may be an arduous task that may not (at all) be possible for the halfhearted. Real freedom may involve getting laughed at, ridiculed, hated, spit on, and ostracized. Real freedom may involve going beyond a fallacious essence that was given to you to exist as. Real freedom is a precious jewel that no money can buy, that no amount of bartering can acquire.
Spider Web Sugar Candy … Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2019
Many people suffer from depression and sorrow. Many take pharmaceutical antidepressants and regularly go to clinics to receive therapy. Of course, for some, it may involve issues based on heredity and diet. For many, it entails accumulated psychological problems. Most, when they were much younger, did not have such issues; in youth, they were filled with wondrous curiosity and inner vitality. Many, as they age, become jaded and unhappy, bored with the same-old-things and with the monotony of it all.
A large part of the problem lies in wrong education. Most, throughout their education, were not encouraged to be keenly aware of their own minds… to be aware of the essence of thought and thinking and to explore beyond the realm that thought and thinking manifest as. Most, from society as it currently is structured, were taught to cherish and exclusively dwell in the process of thinking… in mostly math and reading and such, and not so much with wholeness and integrity. Few were encouraged, in their youth, to question everything and to be free from mere standard ways/procedures. These days, almost all of us are immured within the walls of thought/thinking. Most exclusively dwell in (and “as”) thought/thinking… and very few value going beyond that domain. Most have put all of their eggs into that one basket; in that, they dwell. That basket is like a small, limited prison. Many minds are imprisoned (i.e., deeply embedded) in dogmas, beliefs, presuppositions, antiquated systems, and isolating boundaries.
As one has said so many times before, thinking is always symbolic, always second-hand, limited, and merely representational. Yet so many cling to thinking and unquestionably exist almost exclusively as what it is. Even when most of us look at things, we are looking with (and through) the screen of thinking; such thinking involves labeling, categorizing, classifying, identifying, and pigeonholing. When most look at things, they are primarily looking with the memory bank (i.e., through retained knowledge). Such a memory bank is from the past and is always old, always of stored data. They look with (and from) the stored (old) past… and they inevitably get bored while they feel stale and full of the mundane. With this situation, antidepressants and clinical so-called experts can only help so much. One of the functions of the human mind is to be of order and to transcend sorrow; transcending sorrow is, in itself, order.
A mind of deep awareness can often look at things without merely using the storehouse of old and stuffy memory. To perceive without relying on the storehouse of dead memory (and stale patterns of remembrance) is a living art. There is no method to this art. It does not involve old patterns that you can absorb or practice to improve yourself over time. Using thought when it is necessary but often going beyond it, the wise mind sagaciously realizes that profound bliss is not a mere remembrance. Profound joy is not labeling everything and then looking at everything through (and “as”) dead labels. To perceive without the burden of the past is real living. Real living is not the past perpetually relabeling things (with endless symbols) into the present and future. The mind that goes beyond “perception through mere symbolism and fragmented mental constructs” is a liberated, whole, free mind full of joy.
All Tied Up In Knots… Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2018
I am not the problems, this morning, upon waking up, that i went to bed with. This waking is a real awakening, a true awakening. It is not an awakening to some second- hand religion or separative flag that was shoved down my throat. It is not an awakening to what others have said that i was in the past. It is even beyond what i thought i was in the past. It is, very possibly, a true renewal, a true awakening beyond the past images and labels about myself and others. It is not the old and stale past getting out of bed; it is newness, pristine perception, and whole, healthy action beyond mere reaction.
It is perception beyond the secondhand images implanted by a largely immoral society. We’ll not miss that nightmarish, assembly-line-brain of conditioning! The old, jaundiced brain upstairs is dis app
ear (arh-whoooooo) ing “So goodbye yellow brick road Where the dogs of society howl You can’t plant me in your penthouse I’m going back to my plow!”
Mushrooms deep in the woods… Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2018
Many people do things habitually, mechanically, without thinking, without much awareness, in very robotic ways. The mind gets used to functioning in (and “as”) habit; dullness, and incessant routine set in, making the mind more and more repetitive, more and more machine-like. People get so used to repeating the same set of routines day after day, month after month, year after year, such that they hardly know (or try) anything different. (Air-polluting, fossil fuel spewing vacations aren’t a way out of this, by the way.)
Many people mindlessly and habitually cling to what they were taught, religiously, politically, nationally, ethically, socially, culturally, at home and in the office. To them, “THIS IS THE WAY THINGS MUST BE DONE,” and that is that. Then they remain teaching their children to dwell in the same grooves, to function in the same patterns. Anyone who questions the status quo is considered a trouble-maker or some kind of freak and is cast out. It may be, however, that, in such an atmosphere, true creativity and true “aliveness” is squelched. In such an environment, the truly insightful and the truly creative person is considered an oddball.
Be one of the lemmings if you want to (like most want to), but as for that… well, it’s not for me. Like Einstein, i don’t give a rat’s behind about “fitting-in” or about superficial appearances. It’s the deeper things that matter, and you can’t go deeper if you are stuck in superficial paradigms and one-dimensional routines.
Comparison is often such a vulgar and unnecessary thing. Many people, throughout life, continue to habitually compare themselves with others. Those “others” are often very standard, ordinary, bourgeois, and dull. People compare their home, livelihood, lifestyle, and overall life, with others. Comparison invites imitation; imitation reinforces “second-handedness” and conformity to formulated, standardized “set patterns.” Fear often emanates from comparison… “Will I be as successful as them?” “Am I too different?” Comparison often paves the way to jealousy and superficial showing-off and boasting. (Some people, for instance, go ga-ga, trying to have the hugest and “most pretty” home; this is so childish and superficial.) Taunting another may often involve comparison. Comparison thrives in the world of the opposites (where differences are often magnified). Comparison can make the mind dull; it can be what nourishes mental sorrow.
The wise mind can exist where comparison is seen for what it is and where it is put in its appropriate place (where its limited aspects are seen). Such a mind can be of a profound joy where comparison does not often needlessly enter. When the mind compares, the mind is comparison (within the limited corridor of the opposites). Uniqueness and spontaneous insight usually do not ever depend upon comparison. Comparison and contrasting correlations can be very useful at times, but the mind need not depend upon them as deeply as it usually does. Perceiving directly, without employing comparison, is often very significant and profound.
Few of us, so very few of us, have deep, immeasurable space within (and “as”) the mind. Most minds are endlessly chattering about one thing or another, filled with series after series of limited thoughts (which are merely symbols), images, fears, opinions, musical tunes, and past experiences. Most minds are satisfied with remaining cluttered by what was poured into them. Most go from one series of reacting thoughts and repetitive reconfigurations to another… endlessly. Being satisfied with that is the norm, and that leads to depression, melancholiness, and division.
This space — of thought — which most people adhere to, and consist of, is of limitation. It is the small space of fragmentary symbols, which thoughts actually are. It is the little space between “self” and “other life forms.” It is the fallacious space between a supposed “me” and the so-called distant thoughts that it allegedly controls. It is the space between the past and the future. It is the space between “us” and “them.” It is the little space of sorrow.
Remain plastered there, if you wish. However, it may be most prudent to intelligently consider going beyond the norm. Will going beyond the norm necessitate more methodologies (from the stale past of the old teachers and religious/philosophical/political leaders)? Will going beyond the norm require following certain patterns in time, as in the ways we have merely functioned in throughout the past? Surely not! Love cannot exist deeply and profoundly if limited patterns and limited space crowd the mind. It is the mind that is full of walls of separation and limitation that is the prejudiced mind, the hating mind, the callous and uncaring mind. Love cannot enter what is limited, fragmented, contaminated, and “unwhole.”
The separation of the inner from the outer involves standard perception which largely involves misperception and barbaric acceptances. Such misperception involves conflict, separation, isolation, and distinct borders. A prudent entity who intelligently transcends mere inner-outer frameworks of perception is not a dull mind that walks into walls or that steps into busy traffic. Rather, such a person exists beyond old and cadaverous viewpoints and worn-out, primitive perspectives. Only such a person can be of real order; only such a person can be fully genuine, deeply compassionate, and of vast integrity and virtue. (By the way, idealistically saying that one is “one with nature,” which is all the fashion these days, is not it! A limited, fragmented mind can easily identify itself with anything, but it still remains a fragmented mind.)
Thought and stored memory feed the separation of the inner from the outer. Too many of us worship a false inner and are indifferent about the vast outer. A separate perceiver cannot be the complete understanding of the whole as long as the fragmentary self-projected images and thoughts of an isolated, independent observer are maintained via learned effort. Any state of opposition, such as what a concocted, separate “0bserver” brings about, further nourishes indifference and isolation. Thoughts and “image making” form the perceiver, and without thoughts and mental images, without repeated effort and psychological struggle, the perceiver would not be. The psychological ending of the so-called separate perceiver is not something to be frighted of; the true ending of limited images, symbolic patterns, and accepted barriers is not frightening; rather, it is liberation and involves profound insight. Holistic insight does not occur often for conflict and misperception.
Katydid Nymph and Ladybug… Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2018
Physically, there may be a bridge to a better future. One can eat more healthfully, exercise more, and do things to improve the environment, including building wonderful bridges. Internally (i.e., psychologically), is there really a bridge, and who is going to cross that bridge? Is the bridge different from what one is?
Is the “experiencer” really something separate from the experience? If there were no experiences, what would the “experiencer” be? So many of us, like infantile children, want more and more pleasurable experiences. Can there be moments when a sagacious mind exists without merely depending upon experience after experience?
If anger takes place, can it be looked non-fragmentarily — without manufacturing separate ideals — so as to be fully aware of it (without separative space and time)? Can there be moments when the mind (without excuses) fully sees what it is directly and with full awareness, without concocting notions of something different (that requires space and time to achieve)? If cruelty exists, and ideals manifest of “someday not being cruel,” is the non-cruelty an actuality or is it a mere abstraction (or escape) that depends upon fabricated psychological time?… and may it be that fabricated time (with its space) fails to see cruelty instantly and fully for what it really is? Is the thinker really something separate from thought, or are they one and the same? Is psychological time often an escape depending upon fragmentation, fabricated space, a mentally fabricated separate “I”… and, also, a postponement?
These questions are here for you to ask yourself; they do not exist for you to reply here with any answers.
from Emily Dickinson:
There are two Mays And then a Must And after that a Shall. How infinite the compromise That indicates I will!
A totally different dimension of mind can take place. What nearly all people take to be reality is a far cry from what truly exists (beyond delusion). Most are walking around oblivious to what is really possible. They have accepted secondhand images, secondhand patterns, secondhand symbols, dissected labels, measurements, and cold statistics to be their reality; such reality is akin to taking shadows to be concrete substances, toys to be living things, silly iPhones messages to be substantive. Even our images of self are essentially secondhand patterns that we have assimilated and absorbed. Then, these images of self are involved with images of another (a spouse, for instance); one set of images is involved with what are considered images of another. A (relationship between secondhand images of self and — then, also, down the road of psychological time — secondhand images of another) may largely be based on learned, sequential patterns (of recognition and categorization); such a programmed arrangement (based merely on absorbed patterns/symbols/images) may not be much of a relationship at all. It is a relationship of secondhand patterns. What kind of relationship is that?
Life is tremendously much more profound and deep than what learned symbolism, categorization, and information processing are involved with. If you just stick to those three, that the previous sentence mentions, what you are is likely normal… but you certainly may not be what goes beyond the superficial. People all throughout life are all too willing to tell you how to think, what to do, how to live. So many, blogs included, want to give you spiritual templates, philosophical instructions. There are infinite “expert non-experts” out there; just today, one saw a blog wherein the author stated that to fix our life problems, we have to find the right templates, the right instructions. It may be, however, that real life is much too vast, flowing, multidimensional, and alive for any set of cooked-up “shoulds,” instructions, blueprints, or stale templates.
You won’t be getting any die-hard templates from me. It may be that the timelessness of real wisdom exists only when self-concocted effort and struggle cease (psychologically). Such ceasing involves an ending that doesn’t take time, that doesn’t rely on blueprints, instructions, or processes. Most, however, are frightened about psychologically coming to an end (i.e., about psychological dying); most continue to cling to potty little images of self. Therein lies sorrow; the irony is that, without psychologically ending, their sorrow will never really end. Many of us merely depend upon (and exist “as”) patterns and symbols. Be certain here that we are not at all suggesting ending physically; physical existence is an opportunity and a privilege that can involve keen (unspoiled) awareness and dynamic flowering. Physical death is not for me (except for the wonderful fossils that i collect). Psychological dying, however, is a whole other ballgame. The psychological dying to stale, secondhand, dead symbols and images is real living.
dying is fine)but Death
?o baby i
Death if Death were good:for
when(instead of stopping to think)you
begin to feel of it,dying ’s miraculous why?be
cause dying is
perfectly natural;perfectly putting it mildly lively(but
is strictly scientific & artificial &
evil & legal)
we thank thee god almighty for dying (forgive us,o life!the sin of Death
Wasp reflecting deeply… Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2018
If psychological fear occurs and one tries to avoid that fear by indulging in all kinds of escapes, then the fear is never understood. If one tries to suppress or subjugate the fear, then the fear is never fully understood… one is too busy being in conflict with it. If fear arises and one has ideals about oneself being fearless, then those mental ideations prevent one from actually seeing the fear completely (because ideals and learned principles are getting in the way). So, when fear arises, merely labeling it as something negative, or merely judging it in a “thumbs down” kind of way, clouds the full perception of the fear with secondary, learned reactions concerning it or against it. Fear can only be profoundly understood when it is seen without extraneous factors, without learned reactions “about it.”
Additionally, if the fear is merely seen fragmentarily, from a (learned) mental distance, then it will not be fully dealt with without friction and conflict. Fear may not at all be what you have; fear (when it occurs) is what one actually is. When there is no crass distance between the fear and some accepted, supposed center, then (and only then) can there be understanding without friction, without conflict; that understanding can be whole and of great intelligence. The perceiver is not, psychologically, separate from the perceived. So, the next time fear, jealousy, greed, or indifference show up in (and “as”) consciousness, can they be observed without prejudice, without merely labeling them, without denying them, without merely categorizing them with additional reactions (positive or negative), including reactions involving a separative space between the perceiver and that which is perceived? Only then can deep learning and understanding take place.
You can’t understand something fully if you have no true relationship with it. A relationship based on shadow-like ideals, concocted distance, and a learned and admired (though false) center, is really no relationship at all. True and lasting compassion can only take place when real relationship exists.
[Note: The following two photos are of early spring beginnings of mushrooms. The lower photo is of the mycelium which is, by and far, the main body of the mushroom (which grows underground). The mushrooms we see above ground are merely the small, fruiting parts of the organism. Mycelium — much like a neural network — in some mushrooms can spread for miles and connect with tree roots and other plants, trading nutrients and communication signals with them. (See the movie Avatar.) My theory is that primitive lichen, as a combination of molds and algae working symbiotically with each other… may have later evolved over time into these seemingly separate (but very connected) mushrooms-trees-and-plants. The diminutive Lemon Drop Fungi (Bisporella citrina) are fruiting body parts of the mushroom; the Mycelium pictured are from these Lemon Drops. The Lemon Drops are very small, each being only 1mm to 2mm in diameter. Refer to the following blog for further interesting information on Mushrooms: http://www.jingagustin.com/TheMushroomProject/mushroom-anatomy/ ]
Mushroom Primordia Caps… Photo by Thomas Peace c. 2018