Beautiful wording and yes, as others say, a great metaphor. It seems to add deep new dimensions to the metaphor of the wheel you wrote about a while back, Shiv.
Then this was such a surprising angle: "Do you know what you are really looking at? It is a picture of your self. For what you experience as the ‘self’ is nothing more than the unique pattern of concentric shapes circumscribed by your attention.: I love that!
Thank you also for the repeat, That which you are cannot deviate. That which deviates cannot arrive. Reminds me of Parmenides text (500BC) On Reality:
Thank you for mentioning Parmenides. I was only vaguely familiar with him. After reading more it continues to fascinate me how timeless these realizations are. I felt a sense of great kinship with this pre-Socratic brother.
I read it, beautifully written, it’s exactly what Shiv is talking about I think. I wish I could share this in some of the non duality groups I used to be in.
Love the compass analogy. What I hear you saying is that we can’t not experience. Even presence is an experience. Even the most silent mind is an experience - a concentric circle, a ripple on the pond. The seeker - me - believes that if they find Being they’ll discover the eternal stillness at the centre of it all. Then they’ll be able to live in that still quiet centre - the calm eye of the storm - no matter what’s going on in their lives. This is the fantasy of enlightenment. The reality is you’re always Being and all of the experiencing - there’s nothing to find. This is the realisation. Is that it?
Beautifully expressed - this metaphor really invokes remembrance. I'm always amazed at the simplicity with which you explain, thank you for sharing! I agree -- balance is like adjusting scales, demanding constant effort - weighing, adjusting, managing - all still doing, still movement. Coherence, on the other hand, is alignment. When coherence is present, the circles of doing become transparent, pointing back to where it came from and that being is not separate from doing. I don't see the circles because I am BEING; I see them because BEING has always been here.
Thanks Kris. Yes and the balance is a necessary aspect of this human experience. My point is only to clarify that this is not a balance between “doing and being” as many confuse it. But a balance between doing and other kinds of doing. Being itself is eternally unrelated to the balancing itself but forms the basis of it - like the fulcrum of a seesaw.
Your observation of coherence is a good one. Of course the witnessing of that coherence itself is also a subtle form of doing. Being favors neither coherence nor incoherence yet is equally the basis of both.
Makes sense, thank you for pointing out even coherence as a subtle form of doing. Being as the unchanging fulcrum that is never in movement, never participating in the balancing act, but making it possible. The center cannot be reached, because it was never away.
Inspiring metaphor , thank you ! But to insist that the difference between large circles or small circles is only a question of aesthetic seems misleading to me. The western society has largely "chosen" the large, very large, circles and the consequences are catastrophic (pollution, alienation, loss of sensibility, conflicts etc...) . And , in a person's life, when she "chooses" only very large circle, they are good chances that appear stress , insatisfaction, psychosomatic troubles, and that it would be a very good idea to draw also smaller circles. Of course if you force yourself to draw small circles it will not do any good either. But it seems to me that there is something called wisdom which invites us to find a balance between small and large circle, not only for aesthetic reasons, but for the sake of well being, for the sake of health, and also, yes, for the sake of beauty.
I use the word “aesthetics” here not only to encompass the sensual but the entire breadth of our humanity - including love, justice, goodness and well being. And yes finding this balance - psychological, relational, societal is indeed one of the most ‘aesthetic’ experiences a human can aspire to. Yet, it has nothing to do with being. We need not anthropomorphize being in order to understand it. For being is the basis of the bacteria that knows nothing of justice. And being is the basis of the cloud that knows nothing of well being. It is the basis of all that exists and is indivisible into the apparent forms that seem to manifest as parts of a whole. It is not unique to you or I. It is a universal singularity.
Being as the basis for all that exists is one aspect, and in that aspect there is no difference between clouds, bacteria and humans . Being as "the centre from which your attention moves in ever widening or narrowing circles" in another aspect. The bacteria has no choice to draw small or nig circles. We do, and they are consequences.
Gosh it’s incredible some of the crap these “teachers” come out with, he put this poor bloke in a neurotic mind trap of trying to find balance, and he was berating himself for not finding that balance, so he keeps coming back to the teacher with the unspoken promise of finding that mysterious balance. What a great scam!!
Wow! I really love the metaphor of the compass and the concentric circles.
"The fact is you are always being. And you are always doing. And, never the twain shall meet."
An "awakening" for me was to surrender to the fact that the "twain would ever meet" and accept the uncomfortable reality of never being either one or the other.
While the twain will never meet, there is a possibility of balance or harmony between the two. I find that it is a concept we lack in polarized Western philosophy. Rather than right-wrong, good-bad, enlightened or lost, we can find a harmonious stance between the two, a neutral space of simply "being".
I find the Taoist flexible, energetic concept of life far more comfortable than the static, logical, dualistic concept of life. Yes, the two points never converge, but they do consistently circle each other in a cosmic ballet.
John, I appreciate your bringing in the Taoist flavor and the Moore quote. But to be clear: my whole point was to show that harmony itself - whether conceived as balance, dance, or cosmic ballet - remains an interpretation, an aesthetic, a pattern traced by the pencil. It may feel more nourishing than chaos, but Being is indifferent - or rather, unconditionally accepting of both. To dress it back up as balance, even Taoist balance, risks obscuring the point: that what you are is untouched, prior to both clumsy and graceful circles alike.
Perhaps, but we're consigned to a physical incarnation - a harmonic of chaos and form. We are "Being" but human-Beings. Your vision of ultimate, untouched purity is lacking in humanity. I'll stick with Thomas Moore's more soulful focus.
"Perfection belongs to an imaginary world. It is the life-embedded soul, not the soaring spirit, that defines humanity."
You misunderstand John. I have said nothing of purity nor perfection. Simply that being acts as the fulcrum on which the seesaw of human experience rests. The fulcrum favors neither good, nor bad nor even balance. But without it none are possible.
Fair enough, John. I’m not aiming for practical utility here - just pointing to the ground on which all utility, humanity, and soul already rest. The focus of the piece is on ontology rather than anthropology or psychology. There are other pieces I have written that take on more of the latter hue.
I’m glad I read this thread Shiv, it has clarified further what you are conveying, “Being” simply doesn’t give a flying f**k how we try to bottle it (using your bottle analogy), and couldn’t give a f**k if we “think” we are closer to it or not; our human minds are the ones who think it actually matters.
Beautiful wording and yes, as others say, a great metaphor. It seems to add deep new dimensions to the metaphor of the wheel you wrote about a while back, Shiv.
Then this was such a surprising angle: "Do you know what you are really looking at? It is a picture of your self. For what you experience as the ‘self’ is nothing more than the unique pattern of concentric shapes circumscribed by your attention.: I love that!
Thank you also for the repeat, That which you are cannot deviate. That which deviates cannot arrive. Reminds me of Parmenides text (500BC) On Reality:
Being is. And nonbeing is not.
Thank you, Shiv.
Thank you for mentioning Parmenides. I was only vaguely familiar with him. After reading more it continues to fascinate me how timeless these realizations are. I felt a sense of great kinship with this pre-Socratic brother.
An excerpt with a beautiful translation (I think) is on Stillness Speaks. I'll post it also in Notes with a link to Shiv's article. https://www.stillnessspeaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ParmenidesOnReality.pdf
I read it, beautifully written, it’s exactly what Shiv is talking about I think. I wish I could share this in some of the non duality groups I used to be in.
I looked up Parmenides, very good food for thought
Love the compass analogy. What I hear you saying is that we can’t not experience. Even presence is an experience. Even the most silent mind is an experience - a concentric circle, a ripple on the pond. The seeker - me - believes that if they find Being they’ll discover the eternal stillness at the centre of it all. Then they’ll be able to live in that still quiet centre - the calm eye of the storm - no matter what’s going on in their lives. This is the fantasy of enlightenment. The reality is you’re always Being and all of the experiencing - there’s nothing to find. This is the realisation. Is that it?
Yes that summarizes it well Andrew
Beautifully expressed - this metaphor really invokes remembrance. I'm always amazed at the simplicity with which you explain, thank you for sharing! I agree -- balance is like adjusting scales, demanding constant effort - weighing, adjusting, managing - all still doing, still movement. Coherence, on the other hand, is alignment. When coherence is present, the circles of doing become transparent, pointing back to where it came from and that being is not separate from doing. I don't see the circles because I am BEING; I see them because BEING has always been here.
Thanks Kris. Yes and the balance is a necessary aspect of this human experience. My point is only to clarify that this is not a balance between “doing and being” as many confuse it. But a balance between doing and other kinds of doing. Being itself is eternally unrelated to the balancing itself but forms the basis of it - like the fulcrum of a seesaw.
Your observation of coherence is a good one. Of course the witnessing of that coherence itself is also a subtle form of doing. Being favors neither coherence nor incoherence yet is equally the basis of both.
Makes sense, thank you for pointing out even coherence as a subtle form of doing. Being as the unchanging fulcrum that is never in movement, never participating in the balancing act, but making it possible. The center cannot be reached, because it was never away.
Dear Shiv,
Great piece!
I love this sentence: "The meditator is not so different than the mobster in this regard."
(The other sentences are great as well.)
Thanks for sharing as always!
Love
Myq
Inspiring metaphor , thank you ! But to insist that the difference between large circles or small circles is only a question of aesthetic seems misleading to me. The western society has largely "chosen" the large, very large, circles and the consequences are catastrophic (pollution, alienation, loss of sensibility, conflicts etc...) . And , in a person's life, when she "chooses" only very large circle, they are good chances that appear stress , insatisfaction, psychosomatic troubles, and that it would be a very good idea to draw also smaller circles. Of course if you force yourself to draw small circles it will not do any good either. But it seems to me that there is something called wisdom which invites us to find a balance between small and large circle, not only for aesthetic reasons, but for the sake of well being, for the sake of health, and also, yes, for the sake of beauty.
I use the word “aesthetics” here not only to encompass the sensual but the entire breadth of our humanity - including love, justice, goodness and well being. And yes finding this balance - psychological, relational, societal is indeed one of the most ‘aesthetic’ experiences a human can aspire to. Yet, it has nothing to do with being. We need not anthropomorphize being in order to understand it. For being is the basis of the bacteria that knows nothing of justice. And being is the basis of the cloud that knows nothing of well being. It is the basis of all that exists and is indivisible into the apparent forms that seem to manifest as parts of a whole. It is not unique to you or I. It is a universal singularity.
Being as the basis for all that exists is one aspect, and in that aspect there is no difference between clouds, bacteria and humans . Being as "the centre from which your attention moves in ever widening or narrowing circles" in another aspect. The bacteria has no choice to draw small or nig circles. We do, and they are consequences.
Yes and yet none of those consequences affect being itself which is what the questioner’s original query was concerning.
In the original query, I hear a human concern about how to manage between "big circles" and "small circles" , not a metaphysical concern about being.
Thanks Jean. I see an ontological misunderstanding dressed as a human concern when I read :
“can Being actually survive in the chaos of constant doing, or is it only accessible when life slows down?”
when I read the same phrase, I see a human concern dressed as an ontological question !
I loved this analogy using the compass..such beauty in the words..♥️
Gosh it’s incredible some of the crap these “teachers” come out with, he put this poor bloke in a neurotic mind trap of trying to find balance, and he was berating himself for not finding that balance, so he keeps coming back to the teacher with the unspoken promise of finding that mysterious balance. What a great scam!!
Wow! I really love the metaphor of the compass and the concentric circles.
"The fact is you are always being. And you are always doing. And, never the twain shall meet."
An "awakening" for me was to surrender to the fact that the "twain would ever meet" and accept the uncomfortable reality of never being either one or the other.
While the twain will never meet, there is a possibility of balance or harmony between the two. I find that it is a concept we lack in polarized Western philosophy. Rather than right-wrong, good-bad, enlightened or lost, we can find a harmonious stance between the two, a neutral space of simply "being".
I find the Taoist flexible, energetic concept of life far more comfortable than the static, logical, dualistic concept of life. Yes, the two points never converge, but they do consistently circle each other in a cosmic ballet.
"Do you hear the angels' music?
Allow the re-enchantment of everyday life.
Hear the rhythms and beat of life."
~ Thomas Moore
John, I appreciate your bringing in the Taoist flavor and the Moore quote. But to be clear: my whole point was to show that harmony itself - whether conceived as balance, dance, or cosmic ballet - remains an interpretation, an aesthetic, a pattern traced by the pencil. It may feel more nourishing than chaos, but Being is indifferent - or rather, unconditionally accepting of both. To dress it back up as balance, even Taoist balance, risks obscuring the point: that what you are is untouched, prior to both clumsy and graceful circles alike.
Perhaps, but we're consigned to a physical incarnation - a harmonic of chaos and form. We are "Being" but human-Beings. Your vision of ultimate, untouched purity is lacking in humanity. I'll stick with Thomas Moore's more soulful focus.
"Perfection belongs to an imaginary world. It is the life-embedded soul, not the soaring spirit, that defines humanity."
You misunderstand John. I have said nothing of purity nor perfection. Simply that being acts as the fulcrum on which the seesaw of human experience rests. The fulcrum favors neither good, nor bad nor even balance. But without it none are possible.
No, I understand, but see no practical purpose. I once heard the comment: “Too spiritual to be of earthly good.” 🙏
Fair enough, John. I’m not aiming for practical utility here - just pointing to the ground on which all utility, humanity, and soul already rest. The focus of the piece is on ontology rather than anthropology or psychology. There are other pieces I have written that take on more of the latter hue.
I’m glad I read this thread Shiv, it has clarified further what you are conveying, “Being” simply doesn’t give a flying f**k how we try to bottle it (using your bottle analogy), and couldn’t give a f**k if we “think” we are closer to it or not; our human minds are the ones who think it actually matters.