wouldn’t you want to know?

185

A dear friend calls – a woman who has spent her life on the spiritual path, ceaselessly seeking and serving, and now in her 8th decade.  The power of evil in the world, she says, is too much for her.  She no longer believes in the power of goodness.  She’s contemplating a premature departure.

I sit.  An echo arrives.  It’s not exactly comforting.  It’s an invitation:

Beloved, brave Beingness –

Leave if you wish, but don’t kid yourself that you’ll leave evil behind.

The concepts of evil and its partner, goodness, are inextricably intertwined.  And – they exist only in the thought-system of a perceiver.

Wouldn’t it be a better idea to check out for yourself – before it’s too late – who or what this perceiver is?  Perhaps its information isn’t the full story.  Perhaps it’s making up a story that’s not true.  Wouldn’t you want to know?

Find that perceiver.  Track it to its burrow, feel its terror at being exposed, notice its valid and invalid functions.

Finding, tracking, feeling, noticing … who or what does any of this?  Can it be observed and examined?

It’s possible only if you conceptualize it – turn it into an object to be observed.

But then the hunt begins again, and again … for some-thing that’s just another fragment of the thought-system.

Stop!

What’s left when the mind’s merry-go-round stops?

When the giddiness subsides into stillness?

Beloved! 
~

awakening doesn’t alter any t h i n g

141

One of the multitudes of myths that constellate around the mega-myth of ‘enlightenment’ is that when it occurs all one’s conditioning miraculously disappears.

But so-called awakening doesn’t alter any thing; it doesn’t apply to objects.

Its effects are specific to the manner in which objects – including conditioning, the programmed, determined body-brain – are experienced.

Even a mini-whiff of awakening radically transforms the relationship between perceiver and perceived:  the observed is no longer experienced as separate from the observer.

And it’s clearly seen that it never was, never could be; one just hadn’t looked correctly.  One wasn’t properly awake – hence the term awakening.

It is truly a light-bulb moment.

~

the view from n o w.h e r e

113

this morning: a flood, a broken water pipe, a plumber, a back-hoe digger, much noise, no running water in the neighborhood

~

everything appearing, happening
(including the observer
and her supposed self)
is Creation expressing IT-self

the rhythm of Creation never misses a beat
as IT serenades ITself through a thousand disguises

existence is ITs unfolding score

~

where does ‘I’ begin and end?

95

with a great screeching squawk a feathered black baby dinosaur drops out of the treetops, lands on the edge of the birdbath, looks around, and again looks, then stoops, scoops water, throws its glossy head back and swallows

another squawk, another look around, another swallow

 

the cool, fresh water is nectar in my throat

~

 

life’s naked beingness

88

it’s evident, if you look closely,
that the observer is the observed,
the thinker is the thought, and so on
(gratitude to J Krishnamurti for those powerful pointers)

but the person-problem remains:
who is this ‘observer-person’?
who is this ‘thinker-person’?
who is this ‘inquirer-person’?

the dynamics aren’t difficult to grasp
but who grasps?
and who then understands?

my Buddhist friends warn about dispensing with the ‘conventional’ self
but again I ask: who/what is it that dispenses – or doesn’t?

you can get bogged down in this mind-movie for great grey eons
before it loses its box-office appeal

I cast a look sometimes but boredom soon kicks in
while the wonders of unabridged Life never cease to amaze

Life’s naked beingness shines from ITself
upon ITself
and for ITself

~

one vast transparent eye

81

‘eye-I’ melts into the world
as one
vast transparent eye

‘me-mind’ constantly tries
to drape its veils of memory-weave
over the vastness

yet – not so constantly now…
less and less often
and with notable absence of conflict

the idea of ‘my-me’ fades
‘eye-I’ flowers
and this flowering is all there is

~

what’s the truth of the now-this-here?

61

twinkling flickering stars dance
on the wall of my little sanctuary

it’s easy to understand that they
aren’t ‘real’ stars, for one can also
see the brass candle-holder with its
tiny star-shaped perforations, and
one knows there’s a tea light
burning inside …

it’s less easy to understand
that the stars,
the candle container,
the candle and its flame
are all projections of perception
occurring in exactly the same manner

let’s look

what is actually experienced in this little scenario?
what is experienced before the naming, the describing?
what’s the truth of the now-this-here?

just this:
the eye sees color and it sees shape
the rest is inference and story

but since “eye” and “color” and “shape” are also stories
we need go deeper,
to the source of color and shape recognition:
perception
and then to the source of perception itself:
changeless awareness

and then we need to find out whether
the observed can be split from the observer

can changeless awareness exist aside from
its awareing of … anything?

can anything exist without
changeless awareness awareing it?

~