1st June 2003
And quite irrespective of whether the prevailing sense of the "me", gets pissed of with the functioning in the moment, or is greatly elated with it.
From here....the "getting pissed off" or "being elated" makes no sense.
Where could the basis for these reactions even exist........ It is the
conditioning that determines the reaction?
What coincides with the conditioning, vis-a-vis, what
But conditioning is all non-existent thought passed on.......like a story.
And as they say, proof of the pudding is in the
Till something of Life, in Life, "upsets"
you, there is a "you" to be upset.
So long something of Life, in Life, you want to
change compared to what happened, thus an un-acceptance of the moment AS IT
arises for you, there is a "you" with an agenda, a stake.
Please remember, acceptance of the moment, does not
eliminate tears of grief.
Or exultation of joy.
The tears of grief, is not accompanied with a
"WHY TO ME?"
The exultation of joy, is not accompanied by
"How long will it last", "Is it permanent?", "How can I
hoard it?" "How can I perpetuate it, make it last".
Where are all these "undesirable (to me)" aspects of
phenomenality arising from, if not from.......
"The Plenum of Potentiality".
And all these things and people are just instruments that don't really
exist.....so I've been retching at ....... nothing.
I can't seem to see the distinctions long enough anymore so that
i can take a stance.
Take the stance, where there is not even the stand to
take a stance.
And thus it seeks succor , solace in experience,
assuming that the experience whether for the material or for the spiritual, will
lend it, it's self-identity.
Here is where I would like to start from now......I have noticed for
some time a lack of ..."passion for life". It is so strange. I wonder
how I can live without any motivation for what life seems to offer.
I could say the primary interests that motivated me most of my
-the activity of making art
-listening to music and reading poetry or "spiritual" stuff
-being in beautiful places of all varieties
-simple things like good food, friends, beautiful surroundings...etc.
These things don't engage and excite me like they did.
The world or this thing we call "life" seems so small, finite.
There is no desire to travel.
Silence is more pleasing to listen to than music.
Reading seems a thing of the past, except very rarely.
And...the ART thing...I feel so detached from it, though
it still goes on.
People come and go, some are more intimate than others.....
So, I ask, is this an experience you can relate to?
Don't worry, it's a natural aspect.
The long investments in these activities, AS a means
of self-identity, that is dropping.
Neither the craving, neither the avoidance.
How does this relate to what you wrote above....
...."seeking to address the innate sense of insecurity"
You tell me.:-)
Does the innate sense of insecurity for which a
redressal was sought by "me-A",........ in all these activities,
relatings, ........... does it still prevail and if yes, does it prevail with
the same intensity?
The quality of my life is generally un-dramatic. There are no
problematic relationships...actually they are quite
harmonious and enjoyable...unless "A" wants drama.
I see this so clearly now....and less "wanting of drama".
Neither the craving, neither the avoidance.
So....if there is any "sense of insecurity" it is the insecurity
I feel about this lack of interest in life.
Ahaa, the "me-A" back again.
"Dis-interest is suicide."
"What will you be, if all these drop out, or cease
"Where will be your financial, emotional mental
security, if all these vanish?"
And this is not exclusive to american but there is a particularly nasty brand of that here.
The world is now one big Macdonald fries.
But, eventhough I am aware of the sadness and anger I feel
it seems absurd to rail against it.
And the second i take my "anti-american culture" stance...it all falls
apart and I see the falseness of that stance.
I could see this as the momemtum of human habit or unconscious
desperation for experience in order to perpetuate (the illusion of )
To arrive at a meaning of existence.
so......it is wanting a meaning that starts the problem?
Yes, I can see this.
very soon, that's all I will have to type.<LOL>
Notice, when you lie totally satiated in your lover's arms, ..........you couldn't care whether it was an illusion or not.
Or whether the satiation meant anything or not.
Neurosis is phoning your shrink and saying " I am in total bliss, deliriously happy.WHY?"
I once heard that the whole scenario of "lying in the lover's arms"
is the closest one can get to "experiencing the Divine", so to speak....
But even this pales in comparison to.... what can't be spoken.....
In my life the sexual experience seemed to be no less and no greater
than other pleasant experiences in life. It never had a strong pull for
me. Growing up in 70's and 80's american culture, I felt like a real
misfit, oddball...I've since gotten over that. :-)
That must have been some "gotten over
that", given the environ and the constant media hammering, defining
self-identity, through such "standards of excellence".
As if a blissful relationship with an
"other", whether that is a person or a career, actually defines you to
Not just sex and relationships,........ look at the
typical Oprah shows, all the self-improvement crash courses, Martian men and
Venusian woman, the Wayne Dyers, etc etc.
All based on the premise of an individual self, which
is miserable, or if not miserable at least needs to change, improve, evolve etc,
with the solution invariably "out there".
Thus, all the talk in spiritual circles of losing interest in experience or "letting go" of desires.
Those are the usual bromides.:-)
Forget the "seen", .........look for the "seer".
This is what I've heard so many times.
Do you mean that......
...."look for the seer" .....is the usual bromide ?
And by which, now you make the "seer" as an
object of search, which again births the duality of the one who searches and the
object of the search the "seer".
You cannot look for anything.
For there is nothing else but "looking"
that is going on.
Do I understand correctly:
When I say: "I see the tree."
"the tree" = the seen
"I" = the seer.........BUT.......
Does the "seer" = "A" , in this case ?....
Or does the "seer" = the Unknowable Functioning, The Divine, etc. ?
If the latter is the case....how can I ever "look for" IT ?
(and NOT be a complete fool)
You are close A, so very close.
How can you look for, ...........realize,....... or
become, ...............what you already ARE.
What are all those people talking about ?
I don't mean to be disrespectful, I just want to understand.
When i first discovered Ramana Maharshi I became totally
"devoted". I read his transcripts, watched
the video about him,
Then one day it struck me....this question , "Who Am I?" ...no
longer made any sense to me.
Doooobeeee Doooobeeee Dooooooo.
It seemed ridiculous to even ask.
From the Covenant...........
I have not really known myself,
or anyone else.
I've tried to do good, and not
just what my appetites wanted,
but that was all infatuation
with this precious, isolated, body.
That Thee and me were constantly joining,
I didn't know.
I didn't know
that even to ask "What are You?"
or "Who am I" .........
.......breaks the harmony.
I thought, if all there is is consciousness then why would it ever ask
that question?.....this impacted me so much....BUT....I guess not to
the core because here I am....asking the same question....just in
well....is this the flip-flop you mention?
Who now cares, with even the flip-flops?
And you refer to all of this just below, I see..........
But after reading this second part of equation ... I don't see it this way.
So here arises a question...........If "A" (and everyone else) is only an
instrument for thinking/actioning to happen through in order for a
moment to be such......
Who/What desires a moment to be.........such ?
Take any term, that you like, ................Bozo the Clown, Source, Noumenon, Consciousness, Micky Mouse, Awareness-not-aware-of itself, Jerry Springer,God, Void, Plenum-of-potentialities, Subjectivity, Impersonal functioning.
The key to apperceive A is that the question "Who?" can only arise to a "me-entity" from a sense of separation, isn't it?
I being all there is, ......................can the question "Who am I" ever arise to I?
Who is not-I, to whom I will pose this question to?
Yes, I see this.....
And give an example of a tenacious illusion, if you are moved to.
Right now, the most tenacious illusion that I experience relates
to what I wrote above about lack of passion for life.
There is fear that I will end up on the street due to this lack of
interest in the world, lack of motivation to make money, lack
of ambition to do anything....but maybe sit in my backyard, be
with my friend Ralph and my dog and cat, watch the birds......
And that is "bad",... why?
Is this a deep lack of trust ?
Or the trust is in "thingies" like an
interest in the world, "honed on ambitious motivations", partners/pets
Again, not a problem.
Just see, the trust so placed in
"thingies", will have a resultant consequence, the perpetuation of
And replacement of thingies, with other thingies
(even spiritual thingies),........ the resultant consequence remains the same.
....What am I not understanding ?
Just a reluctant to walk that last bit.:-)
that leap is to happen, not all the rice grains in China, can stop that from