the flowering of creativity


  • intellect

Tends to answer a query or describe a condition with statements – usually absolutes and conclusions.

  • intelligence

Tends to respond to a query with further questions and describe conditions with metaphors, always probing, open, non-conclusive.

  • questions

Seem to be crucial to creative living.  They indicate the presence of beginner’s mind, mind that’s open to new possibilities, willing to explore, experiment, extrapolate in fresh ways, while taking nothing too seriously.

Perhaps the essential requirement of the active dynamic of noumenon – that which seeds its manifestation into phenomena – is a kind of innocent, playful questioning …

Wouldn’t that indicate the necessity of keeping the questions alive and the mind uncluttered with conclusions in order for genuine, unconditioned creativity to flower?


suchness flies solo


n’ – the ubiquitous dimension of ‘now-this-here’ – is not a thing; it could never be any kind of fixed object with independent existence.  It’s easy to understand that nothing perceived can ever be a solid separate ‘thing’:  in order for any ‘thing’ to be an object, it needs a subject.  And we cannot provide any subject without it turning likewise into an object.  So, what perceives ‘n’ and all its phenomenal contents?

When I stop and sit and shut up, the suchness of ‘n’ is simply apparent as ‘now-this-here’-i n g.

Try as I might, I cannot find a separate perceiver of this suchness.  If it has no subject how can it be an object?  It flies solo.  Yet – it is my source and substance.


if I say I am sad, I lie


Sometimes one gets frustrated trying to find clean and accurate phrases to wordify this immaculate suchness – ‘n’ – the ‘what-is.’

Language – this English one at any rate – is quite useless for this purpose.  Whatever is uttered immediately needs qualification, adjustment, explanation.

Perhaps poetry is the medium, but its technologies aren’t known to me.
(Are they knowable at all?)

The problem is the subject-object split.

If I say, “I am sad”, for example, I lie.
I cannot find an owner of sadness (or any-thing else).

Sadness simply is ‘what-is.’

Perhaps one could say, “I is sadness.”
But that would be grammatically clumsy. And also irrelevant, because the ‘I’ seeks no reason for it; ‘I’ has no aversion towards it; has no need to express it.
The sensation of sadness is an energetic body-brain response to apparent conditions, often appropriate and inevitable in the grand scheme of dream-scenarios – as is all suffering, at the bottom line.

And, like the dreams, changing, always changing.

How then to write about That which never changes?

Poetry is the medium.
Like creativity, knowing nothing about how to ‘do it’ is probably the only way for it to happen.


noumenal nonsense


Wei Wu Wei speaks of noumenality
as “the presence of the absence of phenomena”

the words are precise, the meaning unambiguous
but how can it be said more simply?

tick-tock mind comes up with a suggestion-of-sorts:


where O
is pregnant emptiness
or the moon
or a riceball

and nth
stands for ‘now! this! here!’
or the furthest degree
of experience-ability and

and me
is an idea become belief

subtract the belief from the field of experiencing
and what’s left?

simply put – by another big W
that of which we cannot speak”

yet that which we
know to be ‘I’