"And I reciprocate that love that live has for me, by loving it back - just as it is." Wow! This caused a fireworks explosion in my mind. Thank you very much!
One of the few things that struck me - That people may not accept you, but life does.
I’d like to even add that at times, even “I” or the thought that I don’t accept me. So whether I nor someone else don’t accept me, life does! Astounding! This mind/attention has been recently been pretty sticky with what others think of me (despite several significant awakenings in the past 2 years). And it’s funny when you put it. Someone thinks you are the buddah and someone thinks you’re a loser idiot. Which one are you indeed?? lol
1. You mention avoiding sadness. Is this intentional? Later you write about accepting melancholy. I find some sadness to be a very good thing to have in life.
2. How does one strive? How do we invent and push the envelope, and build a first hunting spear or fishing hook, or learning agriculture, or building a cart, a car or a space shuttle? All inventiveness I’ve observed in myself and others is at odds “just be” state.
The “just be” state is not a passive state. If you watch infants explore the world they are full of curiosity trying to figure out how things work while just being. If you participate in any kind of outdoor or extreme sport - you know that often pushing the envelope means entering a state of ‘no mind’.
It is a fallacy that striving involves struggle. It is in our nature to be curious about the world, ourselves and the myriad ways in which the two can be made to relate.
Agreed with kids. Curiosity is a necessary component. But I cannot see it being sufficient. In engineering when I build something it always happens through a long labyrinth or struggle. It could be pleasant struggle, no doubt, but there is competition and loss and striving and all these annoying emotions that short-circuit the “to be” state.
I’m not new to the concept and leaning heavily in detachment and messages such as yours. But I cannot square this circle: how can I kill a mammoth and bring meat back to the cave, let alone fly to the distant planets, while just “being”.
The reality is you have no choice but “to be”. The just being is not something you decide to do. It is a default. Even when you struggle you are being. Even in flow you are being. Even in thought you are being . Or problem solving you are being. Even those annoying emotions that you experience happen while you are being.
Being is the context in which all content appears. When the content is noisy, being is experienced as chaos and struggle. When the content is placid, being is experienced as flow and calm.
Have you ever not just been?
Being is not something the mind does. It is the fundamental quality of your existence. What you are really asking is whether the mind can become AWARE of this state of just being. Because when it becomes aware of it, after a while it begins to relax.
It’s not necessary for the mind to be constantly aware of it for two reasons:
1. The mind isn’t static and it’s focus shifts all the time. Trying to keep the mind fixed on one thing is like caging a monkey. You may train it to be docile but you’ve basically dulled it’s natural spark.
2. Being doesn’t require anything from you whatsoever. It is you (I mean the general you) and the ego that is forever fussing about suffering and liberation, and striving and letting go. Being doesn’t actually care because EVERYTHING is acceptable.
The focus is not the content but the context. And the context is that - you are always just being and you are always aware. That never changes. The content is perpetually in flux. That will never be static.
There is no problem in any of this. Everything is happens as per design.
To be honest this leads further into the woods, and doesn’t help with clarity at all.
I’m with you on “being” as a baseline. And everything else as small events, including our ego and struggles etc. on the surface of this.
The message earlier, that one should not struggle “against the dying light”, so to say, is the one that doesn’t square for me. I see suffering and struggle as important notes in this symphony, and can’t find a good description where “gaming the system” is not important, supposedly. I see nature gaming itself constantly.
Some fish, like certain types of wrasses, have sneaky males called “sneaker males.” These males pretend to be females so they can join a group of fish without being chased away by bigger males. Once they’re close, they can mate secretly and pass on their babies without fighting.
I think “just be” is just… not enough. Needed, yes. But it’s no killer app.
I am not sure I have ever said one ‘should’ or ‘should not’ do anything. I simply said that it is a fallacy that striving must include struggle as a necessary component. Sometimes struggle occurs and sometimes it doesn’t. There is no such thing as a struggle free existence. Yet there is no imperative to struggle either.
The pointer of ‘just being’ has nothing to do with struggle or the lack thereof. It is the space in which it all happens.
Every emotion and experience is like the notes of a piano. There is no virtue in playing the lighter notes and there is no vice in playing the deeper ominous ones. You are free to play any and all or none at all.
"And it is the version of me that lives within them that is the cause of their resistance." You mentioned this a couple of times in the past articles and it stuck with me. How far would you take this? Everything I highly disapprove in someone else is just a part of myself that I can't accept or am not willed to look at? Am I misinterpreting something here?
Jonathan - Apologies for the delayed reply and thanks for your patience. The question deserved a post of its own which I have just published for paid subscribers, which I believe you are?
"There was a time when being called an “enlightened one” would..."
I am reasonably sure I have used the words "Enlightened One" in the past in one of 3 ways - flippantly, in derision or reverence. I may have even used it for the purpose you said - to inflate my listener's ago. I am not above that. This is the first instance I used it with no flavour. Just what it means, no baggage.
I have my reasons for believing you are Enlightened or close to it. People closer to Awareness tend to choose their words carefully. Their sentences are like those new zero tolerance metal cubes - heavy, edgeless and perfect. They wait for the right word and all that's adjacent to arise, feel its shape & jaggedness, weigh its import, see its brightness and colour and then carefully drop it into place. The resulting sentences end up weighty, containing more, dense and fertile with meaning. This is unlike the word jumble that us ordinary folk tend to spout. Correlation does not imply causation, but allowing for your subject of choice, I'd happily bet in your corner.
As I write, I feel the questions/voices/doubts - "Will he take this the right way? Will he think I am blowing up his bottom?". Honestly I don't know what my intentions are - I may well be pandering for your attention. I know I feel privileged to be in conversation with you.
"There is no hierarchy in any of this. Being happy is not ‘better’ than being sad. Being successful is not ‘better’ than being unsuccessful. Being kind is not ‘better’ than being cruel..."
I was (eventually) hoping to ask you about your views on morality. Since you graciously brought it up, I am asking you now. Specifically, do you lie - why or why not? Or is that not a choice you make?
"Do you see now what ‘enlightenment’ means?"
I see it conceptually. I am rather good at that (Mara pops up with a smirk - "Really?"). Dare I say I have felt it tugging at me, but the ego is quick to either dismiss or claim it and it all comes crashing. The spell is cast again, the fog thick. I wish it as embodied wisdom or just a few seconds of clarity. In the mean time, I thank you as you continue to nudge your reader's attention back to where it should be. Here. Now.
All is good my friend. I am neither offended nor encouraged by your words whether you are pandering for my attention or not.
My moraility … I don’t do well with hypocrisy. Can’t stomach it. So when it is present in my environment I typically do something about it. I prefer good people to do good and evil people to do evil and not the other way around. But that is just a matter of aesthetics - not saying it’s right or wrong.
I tend not to lie although I can’t say I never do. I’ve probably told functional lies (eg. Taking a day off work for an “appointment” when I am really just extending my weekend with the family. That sort of stuff). But I don’t lie to my loved ones. I don’t cover up my errors and so on. I don’t know whether it is a choice as much as it no longer seems a necessity. There is more disharmony in my system when I act in a hypocritical manner. So there is a natural propensity to tend towards truth telling.
"And I reciprocate that love that live has for me, by loving it back - just as it is." Wow! This caused a fireworks explosion in my mind. Thank you very much!
Great article, Shiv.
Thank you very much.
So much to unpack.
One of the few things that struck me - That people may not accept you, but life does.
I’d like to even add that at times, even “I” or the thought that I don’t accept me. So whether I nor someone else don’t accept me, life does! Astounding! This mind/attention has been recently been pretty sticky with what others think of me (despite several significant awakenings in the past 2 years). And it’s funny when you put it. Someone thinks you are the buddah and someone thinks you’re a loser idiot. Which one are you indeed?? lol
I agree ☝️
You are capable of everything my brother 👊
Picture's infos : Mahakasyapa smiling at the lotus flower
by Hishida Shunso
Date: 1897 Style: Nihonga
https://www.wikiart.org/en/hishida-shunso/mahakasyapa-smiling-at-the-lotus-flower-1897
“And so, they fantasize that it is possible to enhance the light of our lanterns.”
Brilliant.
In tune with everything here. Two questions:
1. You mention avoiding sadness. Is this intentional? Later you write about accepting melancholy. I find some sadness to be a very good thing to have in life.
2. How does one strive? How do we invent and push the envelope, and build a first hunting spear or fishing hook, or learning agriculture, or building a cart, a car or a space shuttle? All inventiveness I’ve observed in myself and others is at odds “just be” state.
Thank you! 🙏
Thanks for your comment. I think you may have misread it. What I wrote was:
“ I am also not seeking to avoid sadness, inner conflict and frustration. “
With regards to your second question:
The “just be” state is not a passive state. If you watch infants explore the world they are full of curiosity trying to figure out how things work while just being. If you participate in any kind of outdoor or extreme sport - you know that often pushing the envelope means entering a state of ‘no mind’.
It is a fallacy that striving involves struggle. It is in our nature to be curious about the world, ourselves and the myriad ways in which the two can be made to relate.
Agreed with kids. Curiosity is a necessary component. But I cannot see it being sufficient. In engineering when I build something it always happens through a long labyrinth or struggle. It could be pleasant struggle, no doubt, but there is competition and loss and striving and all these annoying emotions that short-circuit the “to be” state.
I’m not new to the concept and leaning heavily in detachment and messages such as yours. But I cannot square this circle: how can I kill a mammoth and bring meat back to the cave, let alone fly to the distant planets, while just “being”.
Many books later I am still at the square one.
The reality is you have no choice but “to be”. The just being is not something you decide to do. It is a default. Even when you struggle you are being. Even in flow you are being. Even in thought you are being . Or problem solving you are being. Even those annoying emotions that you experience happen while you are being.
Being is the context in which all content appears. When the content is noisy, being is experienced as chaos and struggle. When the content is placid, being is experienced as flow and calm.
Have you ever not just been?
Being is not something the mind does. It is the fundamental quality of your existence. What you are really asking is whether the mind can become AWARE of this state of just being. Because when it becomes aware of it, after a while it begins to relax.
It’s not necessary for the mind to be constantly aware of it for two reasons:
1. The mind isn’t static and it’s focus shifts all the time. Trying to keep the mind fixed on one thing is like caging a monkey. You may train it to be docile but you’ve basically dulled it’s natural spark.
2. Being doesn’t require anything from you whatsoever. It is you (I mean the general you) and the ego that is forever fussing about suffering and liberation, and striving and letting go. Being doesn’t actually care because EVERYTHING is acceptable.
The focus is not the content but the context. And the context is that - you are always just being and you are always aware. That never changes. The content is perpetually in flux. That will never be static.
There is no problem in any of this. Everything is happens as per design.
To be honest this leads further into the woods, and doesn’t help with clarity at all.
I’m with you on “being” as a baseline. And everything else as small events, including our ego and struggles etc. on the surface of this.
The message earlier, that one should not struggle “against the dying light”, so to say, is the one that doesn’t square for me. I see suffering and struggle as important notes in this symphony, and can’t find a good description where “gaming the system” is not important, supposedly. I see nature gaming itself constantly.
Some fish, like certain types of wrasses, have sneaky males called “sneaker males.” These males pretend to be females so they can join a group of fish without being chased away by bigger males. Once they’re close, they can mate secretly and pass on their babies without fighting.
I think “just be” is just… not enough. Needed, yes. But it’s no killer app.
I am not sure I have ever said one ‘should’ or ‘should not’ do anything. I simply said that it is a fallacy that striving must include struggle as a necessary component. Sometimes struggle occurs and sometimes it doesn’t. There is no such thing as a struggle free existence. Yet there is no imperative to struggle either.
The pointer of ‘just being’ has nothing to do with struggle or the lack thereof. It is the space in which it all happens.
Every emotion and experience is like the notes of a piano. There is no virtue in playing the lighter notes and there is no vice in playing the deeper ominous ones. You are free to play any and all or none at all.
It doesn’t matter. None of it means anything.
I suppose comments are not the right medium for proper discussion.
It feels anti-life to say “It doesn’t matter. None of it means anything.”
We must go somewhere.
Sorry, I think this is a philosophical drug of sedation with high addiction potential.
There is a reason “to be”. These lines destroy this reason with sophism of detachment.
I cannot continue, and suggest you rethink your view as well.
Beautiful
"And it is the version of me that lives within them that is the cause of their resistance." You mentioned this a couple of times in the past articles and it stuck with me. How far would you take this? Everything I highly disapprove in someone else is just a part of myself that I can't accept or am not willed to look at? Am I misinterpreting something here?
Jonathan - Apologies for the delayed reply and thanks for your patience. The question deserved a post of its own which I have just published for paid subscribers, which I believe you are?
I'm touched by your reply and thrilled to read.
"There was a time when being called an “enlightened one” would..."
I am reasonably sure I have used the words "Enlightened One" in the past in one of 3 ways - flippantly, in derision or reverence. I may have even used it for the purpose you said - to inflate my listener's ago. I am not above that. This is the first instance I used it with no flavour. Just what it means, no baggage.
I have my reasons for believing you are Enlightened or close to it. People closer to Awareness tend to choose their words carefully. Their sentences are like those new zero tolerance metal cubes - heavy, edgeless and perfect. They wait for the right word and all that's adjacent to arise, feel its shape & jaggedness, weigh its import, see its brightness and colour and then carefully drop it into place. The resulting sentences end up weighty, containing more, dense and fertile with meaning. This is unlike the word jumble that us ordinary folk tend to spout. Correlation does not imply causation, but allowing for your subject of choice, I'd happily bet in your corner.
As I write, I feel the questions/voices/doubts - "Will he take this the right way? Will he think I am blowing up his bottom?". Honestly I don't know what my intentions are - I may well be pandering for your attention. I know I feel privileged to be in conversation with you.
"There is no hierarchy in any of this. Being happy is not ‘better’ than being sad. Being successful is not ‘better’ than being unsuccessful. Being kind is not ‘better’ than being cruel..."
I was (eventually) hoping to ask you about your views on morality. Since you graciously brought it up, I am asking you now. Specifically, do you lie - why or why not? Or is that not a choice you make?
"Do you see now what ‘enlightenment’ means?"
I see it conceptually. I am rather good at that (Mara pops up with a smirk - "Really?"). Dare I say I have felt it tugging at me, but the ego is quick to either dismiss or claim it and it all comes crashing. The spell is cast again, the fog thick. I wish it as embodied wisdom or just a few seconds of clarity. In the mean time, I thank you as you continue to nudge your reader's attention back to where it should be. Here. Now.
All is good my friend. I am neither offended nor encouraged by your words whether you are pandering for my attention or not.
My moraility … I don’t do well with hypocrisy. Can’t stomach it. So when it is present in my environment I typically do something about it. I prefer good people to do good and evil people to do evil and not the other way around. But that is just a matter of aesthetics - not saying it’s right or wrong.
I tend not to lie although I can’t say I never do. I’ve probably told functional lies (eg. Taking a day off work for an “appointment” when I am really just extending my weekend with the family. That sort of stuff). But I don’t lie to my loved ones. I don’t cover up my errors and so on. I don’t know whether it is a choice as much as it no longer seems a necessity. There is more disharmony in my system when I act in a hypocritical manner. So there is a natural propensity to tend towards truth telling.
Top article…so clear…
Thanks.
What happens when a fully Enlightened Buddha comes to town and clarifies the Dharma?
http://beezone.com/latest/four_yanas_of_buddhismedit.html
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://beezone.com/shakti/theshaktiherplaywithadida.html SHAKTI
http://www.adidam.org/gnosticon/spirit-of-buddhism
http://www.integralworld.net/reynolds33.html
And is acknowledged as The Dharma Bearer by the Sixteenth Karmapa
http://www.adidaupclose.org/FLO/karmapa.html