|
UncommonSense 2
Dear TT, thnx, J____. :) ok, in answer, here's a few aspects of life on earth that took me a long while to come across. ...maybe if i'd been given a heads-up about them sooner, i could have been saved some drama and turmoil along the way. this is a guide of some of the parts of being human that, if known about at the outset, might allow some quicker development of being well informed about the life experience. and while these are just a few areas, and just my opinions, it sure helps to have a framework to contextualise this sometimes messy, sometimes confusing, and always surprising existence... love
--------------------------------------------------- starting from the top, is love. and let's get one thing straight, right now. love is not the Corinthians 1 rap about 'goodness, patience, tolenance, sweetness and light, etc.'... it is these qualities - but... also, a consumate love, shared between two people, *transcends* just the good, as it *transcends* the difficulties inevitably encountered along the path of any serious relationship. see, this is an important concept to understand to begin - "transcendence" means to "include, and go beyond" something. so, love includes happiness, and laughter, and fun times. yet, it also includes disappointment, and angst, and loss and grief as well. in fact, love includes EVERYTHING - and, *goes beyond* all these lesser qualities to be more than anything you can put your finger on. it can be said, with some justification, that love flows through the whole of life and every component part of this reality. although it is not always seen as such. and this seeing is in the believing - such that love not acknowledged is the cause for a great deal of misery and mistrust. while love acknowledged, that is believed in and therefore seen everywhere, can make a whole life worth living, bringing into manifestation joy and bliss and contentment, but not *just* these things. love lived, bestows upon us the tolerance of harshness directed towards us, and compassion for those without the capacity for love or happiness. it also allows us to accept the reality of our selves, which often don't measure up to what we'd like to be - and so an acceptance of all sorts of things we'd otherwise interpret as "wrong, bad, unacceptable" is possible, with a loving attitude. ...the entire show of life comes into focus as an endeavour worth being engaged in, with a loving perspective. it really is worth "making love" in this life. and i'm not talking about sex, although that's all part of it. what i'm getting at, is that love exists "a priori", inherent in the nature of this existence like an "ether". yet, committment to growing love, like a plant that is carefully tended with devotion and care, will enable the *recognition* of love in your own life more and more. ...i guess some of us are lucky to be born into loving families and environments - while the rest of us, must make this love with an unceasing and joyous dedication to bringing about the understanding, in ourselves and others, that the WHOLE of life is imbued to the very essential core, with the nature of being love. it does not simply conquer all by waging battles on non-love and emerging victorious. no, love conquers all, by virtue of the very nature of the conquering being one of "waging love", and expanding love by loving only - like lighting a candle from a candle, and then with that candle, lighting a bonfire, until the ignorance that anything is anything *but* love, is dispelled, and the stark blackness of shadow gives way to the varied hues and textures of the vision of all, as love. the philosophical basis of political orientation simply, look at it as a continuum ranging from LEFT, though CENTRE, to RIGHT leaning viewpoints. at the far left 'wing' we call this "Radical" orientation, characterised by an absense of rules and polity altogether, at the extreme. "Anarchism" tends towards an embracing of Revolution as a basic principle of life, whereby change happens *continuously* and discontinuity of everything is the fundament of reality - that is, *Uncertainty* and *Flux* is pivotal to a left-leaning view. thus, the more "subtle" realms of the human experience are generally honoured by people favouring this viewpoint - those parts of life which obviously change unpredictably, like emotions, visions, dreaming, expressive sexuality, abstract art, feelings and permissiveness to live fully all these modes of living. there are less "rules" accepted by extreme left-leaning advocates, and an absense of heirarchies of all types. existence is seen as no part being greater or more important than another, and all is perceived as unique, the spontaneity of life as crucial and the varied accidents of human happening neither objectively 'good' or 'bad. in fact, the further towards the left one travels, there is a casting off of 'objectivity' completely, whereby the "Subjective" experience of each person is seen as the only true reality. although, to avoid an easy illusion at this point, it must be made clear that this is not just "my" subjective perspective that is awarded status of legitimacy, but also everyone elses, such that one who holds the subjective opinion of an objective basis of existence is equally "right" (haha) as one who believes in subjectivity, and experiences life accordingly. the far right 'wing' is "Conservative" by definition. and this does not mean beliefs in certain arguments relative to popular "issues" we see on the television and in newspapers. this conservatism informs every aspect of existence to such individuals. when we examine what is "conserving", then we find by looking at the word that something from the past, is being sought to have a continued existence. and so, the nature of change experienced by right-leaning people, is an Evolution, wherin almost all facets of the situation in the past are "conserved", remaining the same, and changes are incremental. we can see this in adherance to traditions of all types - old religious ways, family structures, nation states, and old theories of reality, etc. that is, a perpetuation of the past, and resistance to the new and spontaneous, is emphasised by politically 'right' believers. so, belief in a purely "Objective" reality is championed by these folks - whereby the material world is generally viewed as more fundamental to the life experience than the 'subtle' realms described above, and often we can detect (have we eyes to see) a suppression of free-flowing emotion and spontaneity in many right-wing characters, since these realms of experience which naturally tend to change radically, are repressed and an attempt is made to *Control* revolutionary parts of life in favour of a predictable, slowly evolving, and *Normalised* way of being. Fascism is an example of extreme right-wing orientation, a Nationalist movement, which we can see sets up an unchanging principle overlaid upon a wriggly and changing reality, that of the nation state, and then seeks control over a population based on this illusion of certainty. generally, far-right orientation involves a great emphasis on heirarchy in all forms, particularly in the field of human power relations, that results in *Authoritarian* systems of control, based on the conservative person's appraisal that some people are "better" than others, more capable, etc. correspondingly, there is given more sway to the biological basis of human nature by people seeing through this belief system, as opposed to the left wing viewpoint which favours a social, learned cause of human natures. Centrist political orientation may take many forms, and incorporate some elements from all over the political spectrum. notably, a popular centrist maxim may be something like "everything in moderation", and is reflected by the "Golden Mean" doctrine. "Quietism, Pacifism, Utilitarianism, Democracism" all may be centrist to some, while employed by others in the service of any political end. essentially, there have been in party politics globally, all sorts of combining these ways so that the left-centre-right spectrum model of political orientation is not comprehensively descriptive in every case. yet, as a general rule-of-thumb it may be used to undersatnd the broad differences between 'more right' and 'more left' leaning beliefs on the basis of tradition vs reform/revolution, upholding of the status quo vs introduction of new systems, economically laissez faire vs interventionist policy, Objectivism vs Subjectivism, doctrine/static-beliefs vs feeling/intuition, Conservatism vs Radicalism, inequalities vs egalitarianism, respectively.
basically, the *big* religions of the East are Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. there are others, like Jainism, Confucianism, Sikhism, and many more, but i am not so familiar with them, apart from Saivism which i will not go into here. Taoism is the traditional religion of China, stretching back many thousands of years into the mists of time. there are many shamanic practices in some forms of Taoism, from tribal days, and it has gone through many, many, many transitions and phases until the modern day where it's not really allowed to be practiced in China anymore (but still is, to an extent, and is popular elsewhere in the world). there are all sorts of schools of Taoism, yet they all go back to this one book, the Tao Te Ching, for their roots (even though the roots are older, this is the best exposition of it). if you are interested, a good starting point is just to read this book and feel how it is for you - see whether it "fits", and practice some of it's very slippery but wise advice.. the goal of Taoism is Spontaneity, harmony with nature, "letting it flow", being "at one with Tao", etc.. Hinduism is huge. really, it is. but, not as diverse as many people imagine. for a start, virtually every Hindu believes in one unifying Supreme Absolute (without form) known as Brahman, which is *Everything* but has no limiting attributes, and thus talking about it is not really useful. also called Aum. then, most people recognise a single god *with* form next down the ladder - some worshipping Shiva, others Vishnu, or other gods. in this capacity, the god is considered to be *Everything*, in a humanoid form. that means everything, like all the good and bad stuff, and you and me and all of it... there is no devil or equivalent of this in Hinduism which is not an aspect of the Divine - *all* is Divine, and all is God/Shiva/etc... then there is generally considered to be a trinity of gods below this of Brahma/Vishnu/Shiva... in these capacities the gods represent everything still, each exemplifying one of three complementary aspects of reality. so Brahma is the "Creator", Vishnu is the "Maintainer", and Shiva is the "Destroyer". and each god at each level (except the highest Supreme without form, Brahman), has a "consort", or a lover - a female deity (goddess) with which he is always together. below this level it starts to get more varied and complicated, as each tradition has different sub-potencies that it worships... there are countless gods at the lower levels, since by virtue of Brahman being everything, thus every tiny thing is Divine. even some seemingly ordinary things can be worshipped as gods... like the elements, or the sun, animals, etc., although in mainstream types of Hinduism they are recognised never as Supreme when considered separate from Brahman (which they are not), but always as "minor deities" that are worshipped for special "minor rewards", such as Ganesh (the famous elephant headed god) being worshipped to "remove obstacles", etc... you are aware i'm sure, that Hinduism is India's main religion, however not so commonly known is that this is a colonial name for the continent's spiritual traditions, coming from the name of the "Indus" river being used to designate many diverse sets of practices. the goal of Hinduism is ultimately "Moksha", or "Samadhi", (ie. Enlightenment), although the process is also important, and so there are many other important goals for Hindu people, like "non-violence", but these other goals are largely tradition-specific, with Moksha being the unifying aim of all spiritual practice. following attainment of the realisation of Moksha, the course takes different turns depending on the tradition followed, yet bringing this "Liberating" experience to others is generally indicated as the living culmination of the spiritual path. ...actually, there are schools which aim ultimately for "Siddhi" (special powers which are the result of meditation on particular forms, regarded by most as only partway to Liberation), so it is difficult to clearly delineate all forms of this vast and varied tradition as having a single goal. Shankara is the progenitor of the Hindu path known as Advaita (non-duality). he is reputed to have travelled all around India debating with, and defeating, representatives from all other philosophical and spiritual disciplines of his time, including the Buddhists. his take on spirituality is that whatever there *seems* to be, it is all just illusion until the final truth of Brahman (absolute formless "god") is realised. and he posits that it is our life work to overcome this delusion of ignorance by a method of investigating deeply who we really are, eventually finding that we are indeed this Brahman, just as everything is. Maharshi and Ramakrishna are more modern gurus loosely allied with this tradition, both inspiring millions of followers to seek and find the One in the Many, and then dispose of this One also, to live freely as the continually changing and unspeakable Brahman. there are over 100,000 books on Buddhism, so i'll just say that basically, Siddharta Guatama was an actual person - not a god - and he worked really really hard for about 16 years to achieve "Enlightenment". he was a Hindu, a prince who left home for the spiritual life, and used many of their techniques. although Buddhism is very different to Hinduism, many consider it to be something like a "Reformation" of Hinduism, which occured around 500BC... kind of like the Catholic and Protestant split. the main difference is that Buddhism acknowledges *NO GOD*... and *NO GODS*.... people may attain realisation of their Buddha-nature through certain practices... also, they acknowledge (unlike Hinduism), *NO SOUL*... read an introductory book to find out more - it's too much to cover here, because there is sooo much to it - there is so much that is important that i can't go into, like the central notion of the Impermanence and "Emptiness/Voidness" of everything, Precepts governing conduct, Bodhisattva consciousness and actions (as a pen-Ultimate condition), 6 realms of existence describing human nature, prominent figures, etc... :) there are four broad Buddhist groups, known as Mahayana, Hinayana, Varjayana, and Zen. the first basically aims for Enlightenment for all, and the second (Hinayana, also known as Theravada) aims for Enlightenment just for the practitioner... Varjayana is often referred to as "Tibetan Buddhism", and there's so much to that that an introductory book is handy there, too - it still retains many shamanic practices of the Bon tradition from around Tibet, and incorporates many aspects of Hinduism (and even some Greek and Chinese medicinal practices) into their way. Zen Buddhism is pretty much what happened when Buddhism met Taoism, and at a deep level, contains the Way of both cultural traditions. when Buddhism was brought into China by Bodhidharma, it became practiced as "Ch'an", and then *much* later moved into Japan to become Zen... the goal of Buddhism is Nirvana, yet also bringing this experience back into ordinary life to share with others. like i mentioned, some schools place more emphasis on the "compassion" side (being a "Bodhisattva" is the state whereby one vows that every living being will be Enlightened before that person/Bodhisattva will be Enlightened, involving tireless work towards this goal), others consider their own personal "Enlightenment" to be the sole aim of practice, while still more work for Enlightenment and then help others afterwards. reading around the Paths is a good idea if you would like to know more. books like the Tao Te Ching (Stephen Mitchell translation is very accessible and profound, for Taoism), the Teachings of Bodhidharma and the Dhammapada and works by Zen masters of old times (for Buddhism), and the Bhagavad Gita, Upanisads, writing by Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, Ramesh Balsekar (for Hinduism, among many other wonderful books).
Models of existence fall broadly into four categories: The "objective" theories of the nature of our existence can be likened to the ordinary consciousness perceived in the waking state. it seems that there is a "me" and that the rest is "other", and the interaction of these two facets of life provides the dynamic causing all manifestation, all activity and liveliness. Such models tend to devalue the feelings, idiosyncratic interpretations and the very experience of an individual, in favour of propositions which can be applied broadly across all ways of life and modes of being. They use a "system" of theorising about the nature of things which is at once distinct both from the observer, and from that which is being described, indicating a tripartite division of everything into identity/theory/reality. Included in this category are theories such as: The limitations of these theoretical frameworks purporting to describe all of reality become clear when such patently irrational and unquantifiable aspects of being like emoting, intuiting, religious experiencing, feeling, loving and creating are attempted to be explained by these models. All these theoretical models at this juncture will posit a separate level of existence to account for irreconcilable divergence of essence, falling into a dualism of the mind/body/(theory), self/other/(theory), god/creation/(theory) type. Not to hold up simplicity as an ultimate virtue of a theory, but there is some sound rationale for not complicating descriptions of whatever is being talked of with unnecessary terms - Occams Razor (~ that the simplest explanation is the best) is a broadly useful, while not infallible, rule-of-thumb for judging the relative merits of theories, and having three terms to denote one existence is surely less elegant than positing one only, or even two. The second category of frameworks by which existence may be processed, the "subjective" theories, have the benefit of being not just intellectually comprehended, but experientially understood. Although, for armchair philosophers this is a considerable obstacle, as without active involvement, the truths of these systems will never be revealed. To accept these notions as valid, one must make the effort to live the theory, and then may acknowledge the propositions as either "real for me" or "not attainable by me". The type of theories covered by this "subjective" label may be likened to the dream-state of being, whereby all phenomena are of one substance, as both the dreamer and dream characters/action, are one. And yet, there is still maintained the separation between "witness/observer", and observed, suggesting a subtle, yet pervasive duality by this mode of reality-processing, the presence of a "dream-ego", or equivalent in whatever model is being suggested. Examples of this type of theory are: The third type of model of existence is the endstate of some spiritual traditions, known variously as Nirodha, Nirvana, Samadhi, Satori, Satchitananda, yet is prior to bringing these truths back into ordinary living and integrating them into a unified way of being that transcends both the prior modes of processing reality, and also the truth of this experience of absolute "cessation". Like deep, dreamless sleep, there is no-one to perceive the central experience of this way of living, and thus it may only be talked about from the perspective of one not yet entered into sleep (ever) and thus with no real understanding of the feeling of such an experience. Or from the "other side", but since this experience is technically not describable to someone who has not entered into the experience, and as the third-"gate"-way is not separable from the "fourth-way" (as the fully integrated and ongoing phase of realised non-duality), only a "pointing towards" is possible. This situation is still dualistic, as the endstate is different from what appears to some to be a difference between this and the states before and following, yet only from the perspective of one not yet realising the culmination of these paths - to the Realiser, there is none but the "fourth way", while to the uninitiated, the non-dualistic transcendent unity is not experienced, and so must ever be described as a transient phase. *seeming* to not persist before and afterwards, there remains a split posited by the observer between "unenlightened" and "enlightened" states. so broadly, there pertains a basic division (eg. between 'theorised' enlightened state, and condition of ordinary consciousness) from the perspective of one person, and complete integration into indivisible "Un-nameable-ness" from the perspective of another - hence, dualistic by virtue of acknowledging the merely observing other as "as real" as the experiencer of this condition. Some theories of this type may be found in the following traditions, which posit this way as the endstate of spiritual discipline, as an experienced state about which nothing may be accurately spoken: The final category of models of existence do not purport to "explain" reality, or to induce a particular experience - in fact they have no purpose. They are the non-dual ways of comprehending and uncomprehending living, which make sense only when the basic assumptions of concept, certainty, continuity, identity, duality (of course), objectivity, reference-point, subjectivity and utility are discarded. Actually, the facticity of everything must be questioned and found to be partial if the non-dual nature is to be revealed as recognised. Up until this point, we may have theories about the non-dual nature of reality, but we will not be consciously accessing the active experience of non-duality, despite all of existence being, at all times, of a non-dual nature. following recognition of the eternity, before which there was no other now as there is no before, realisation is occuring of state as real, and as always having been real. The state mentioned is neither objective nor subjective, yet contains elements of both, together, and so may be termed "neither yet both". The experiencelessness of non-duality may be likened to a state incorporating all levels of consciousness together, intimately and seamlessly interlinked - waking consciosness, dreaming consciousness, and deep sleep, operating all at once and thereby evidencing a "fourth state". however there are no names sufficient to describe effectively any of the component parts as they represent the un-wholy whole, all being as one-ness-ing, and no way to talk of one-ness-ing, except to point to it arbitrarily by whatever name suits the whatever it may be seeming, depending on the person talking and in whichever context is happening. and so, believe nothing in the foregoing paragraph as representing an iota of insight into the ultimate nature of ... whatever. because the words are not the experience, and neither is your understanding of the meanings implied the non-dual experience, unless it seems that way, and then it may not be... The living of these theories occurs at the accomplishment of these (among other) disciplines (Realiser's perspective): Spiritual Powers & Accomplishments Various spiritual practices will necessarily result in various attainments. While the non-dual state is the ultimate end to all authentic forms of such activity, the consequent lifestyle and way of being that the practitioner lives at the conclusion of spiritual discipline will be determined by the basic material of that person's "karma" combined with any further engagement in particular types of sadhana (spiritual practice). For example, the attainment of "Siddhis", or what seem to most as "magical" abilities, is guaranteed by devotion towards and worship of, different deities. Thus, to gain the powers of "telepathy", worship of one particular god/dess is required, wheras to attain the ability to conjure objects, another deity must be the object of prayerful worship. This is a natural corollary of the universally applicable rule that whatever we devote our attention to, this will we become. So, even non-'supernatural' objects are possible to meditate upon, and the resultant powers will be likewise, non-'supernatural'. For example, an element (earth, air, fire, etc.) may be the focus of prolonged attention, thereby gaining for the aspirant the associated powers. Or, an animal or plant may be used. This principle is readily comprehesible by examining the acquisition of ordinary skills and learnings in the course of everyday living. Generally, the more lofty the image worshipped, the greater the resulting powers, and also the longer it takes to achieve such abilities. There is, in addition, more stability of "extra-ordinary" power achieved by devotion to the higher deities than is possible from attending to lower aspects of existence. Yet, in many major spiritual traditions, all these powers and abilities are seen as but stepping stones to a state wherein no powers are exercised - the non-dual state of "not-doing". In fact, in the disciplines of Zen Buddhism, some Taoist schools and Advaita Vedanta (for example), it is strongly advised that the spiritual aspirant not use any powers that they may encounter, and immediately move on from these fascinating "magics", for not only does the use of these intermediate capacities diminish reserves of spiritual energy quickly - there is also danger of falling prey to the allure of such power, and never making it to the more comprehensively accomplished realms of universal consciousness. Thus, while certain schools of practice will seek only attainment of these unusual skills, i will suggest from experience that there are more substantial and rewarding modes of being possible when we ignore these minor abilities as they come to us, pass them by "without a backward glance", and keep our intention firmly planted upon realisation of the supreme goal of spiritual practice: Moksha, Satori, Samadhi, Liberation, Enlightenment, etc. There are no words for the goal of this spiritual path, although many have tried. There are many ways to describe all sorts of universal waypoints to guide others, but essentially, it is the Sincerity in aiming single-mindedly for the ultimate realisation, approaching guides met along the way with Respect, and being willing to Sacrifice everything, even life, for the attainment of the ability to bestow absolute happiness, bliss, contentment, relief of all suffering, joy, peace, and the ability to love, upon other people - the non-dual condition of realising uncertainty is as good a name as most, which incorporates these and all other aspects of the active experience of whatever it seems. For it isn't that one person wanting peace is able to accomplish this on their own, but only with the help of experienced "masters/gurus" is this possible. And, they will likely assist only those who they feel confident will pass on the best of their humanity once in a position to influence others. With the health of humanity and the universe the primary motivation, much can be realised which will forever remain a mystery and "occult" to those who wish the power that such grace brings for themselves alone. And anyhow, the nature of the process is that built-in safeguards exist to prevent misuse of the ultimate graces, such that maintainance of the state requires clear conscience, & acting for universal harmony, etc., without which a disolution of the realisation occurs, as has happened to many before.
1 lover flee the night and be with me forever. come, approach the gate of our merging with eyes open to the bliss of eternity. feel the wind wild on your cheek while the glow of first sunrise dreams of the midday sun. hold and kiss me, embrace with the passion our birthright. make light to me, harness the power to blow things up and direct it into me. caress the spring smile of a lively delight, smell sweet bright seabreeze over the rushes. rush to me. we are forever now, only us, always and all ways. food for you i offer myself. drunk with the fluids fresh from the ocean of laughter in your eyes. join one day to one day and breathe. swim forward diving deep through rippled glee. ecstasy live showering immense open take me away. mingling of mountains of new union, stretching to the sky bringing down the stars at the edge of infinity. a clean beginning - the perfect joining of two loving hearts into one song of abandon. we can stay like this until the morning of a distant tomorrow. in. love. how was your day good i see really that's great. maybe a pasta for dinner. oh of course the late meeting, well no need to cook. no... it doesn't matter - we're all ready for the show next Tuesday. haha, of course they've learned their parts. what? well, i can't help it if the used-by date isn't accurate... i mean, who reads these things anyway? hey i need a shower later so don't use up all the water, ok. sure, that's coming up soon - just as soon as the bulk of finishing the accounts is done we can run over it again. hey, we need some bread. the grainy type will be fine, i really don't care. it's not surprising the traffic was heavy today, seeing as the finals are on. i don't know about that, it's not the usual way we do it but what the hell, we only live once. take out the trash would you - i couldn't be bothered. it's not that i don't appreciate the visits, but can't you tell them to call first? no, it's just a glitch in the timing. it'll sort itself out by tomorrow. i honestly don't feel there's anything we can do to help her - she got herself into this and she can dig herself out. yes, you too. i. know. 4 i tried every trick in the book to make you love me. it seems there is no book for what we have going on. if you needed me to free you from some curse then i would have called in some helper long ago, but where the curse is being helped then i should go now. you gave me the best years of your life, and took the hellish time i went through in return. those women i went with i have no feeling for - just memories. some days i have joy, just that it's when you're away i feel the burden of my burden on you lifted, and this is a relief. if you had only had an affair, risked it... then, we might have been even, and you happy. i am guilty, and repentant. and there is anger, but i am guilty, and i have served my time, seven years solitary, the last three on parole, never forgotten. living is the easy way out, so here's something for you - a written confession. a pleading of shame and a throwing upon mercy of the court... it's not so long ago i told you a story on the beach of an Inuit man who saved his skeleton woman - but that, which made you look fondly at me, was just a tale from a popular book. now, i only have my own words, and these do not please... enough. 5 i am dead. not even floating. utter negation of living. sickening endless nothing. there is a light here, but i don't need it. it's bright, but what's the use. and it fluctuates anyway. some colours mildly reminiscent of a river. a reflection on a river. the mirror surface of this river. the man at the crossing tells me there's no-one here. but who am i? is this the time for such questions? passersby nod. Cramped as all get out in here. Where's the light switch? i see a friendly face - now why is there no certainty anymore. i wonder. learning some neat things about shapes. letters. words. strings and developing notions of words. this is familiar, i've met you before haven't i? do you come here, often? Feel as though i am waking up from a dream so real terrifying to think that it is just a life... i mean, dream... i mean... i walked across a bridge today, and the darndest thing happened. i fell. for her... ...is reality rational, or is it wonderful...?
pacifier: development: to heal this tripartite (dualistic+) division, synthesise the real and unreal first, get busy accepting that it all provisionally seems to have *some* sort of existence (it is "really" there) and cross off all the "Un" bits to leave just the "Real" labels on everything... and for now, leave the "i" note where it is... next phase, stick the same Post-it note everywhere, saying either "i" or "Real" (depending whether you are falling into the intermediate metaphysical illusions of Solipsism or Realism, respectively), and put them on everything *including* your forehead... soon, you may be inclined to replace them all with a giant Post-it note you built in stone, covered in gold-leaf, and worship it... anyway, there are so many Post-it notes all over the room, that the door's sealed shut by them... the windows are high off the ground, and locked from the outside and you're getting hungry, so you give someone of adequate stature a call (Bob Adamson's a tall man [or, insert guru here]...), to lend a hand... doesn't take too long before rescue arrives, the window flies open and the notes blow away... so, you head over to the non-dual pizza place happening nearby, and get something to eat... no doubt, before long, an acquaintance calls you and says "i'm hungry man, but i'm locked in..." ultimately:
this system of *action* is drawn largely from Buddhist and Hindu systems, with a splash of all sorts of other ways of being conducive to contentment and all sorts of amazing outcomes. for example, non-lying means that gradually, one's words take on the quality of "truth, believability, etc." and people tend to listen and respect what is being said to a greater extent, which *does* result in deeper trust developing in all relationships. likewise for the other practices. it is not meant to be a laying down of what is best for everyone, but it does comprise a very workable system of broad guidelines to follow that result in benefits both for the adherent, and for people around them, and ultimately humanity (and beyond). it is by no means comprehensive - simply a starting point for anyone who has maybe been gliding along, living the best way possible as circumstances dictate, and feels it's time to put something tried and tested in place to inform action, to make life feel more fulfilling in unexplored ways. maybe even help someone along the way, and learn first-hand the benefits of considered action. the first five (5) are the precepts followed by Buddhist lay-people (ie. householders. monks & nuns have an extra five guidelines). ~ practising, at all times: ~ practising, as guiding principles about self and other: ~ honouring the six chakra levels of action in the world: ~ realising the nature of existence as a dreaming. ~ feeling the 'emptiness/wu/tao/aum' nature of *everything*, as it arises (neti neti). ~ allowing whatever happens to arise, to seemingly be, and to disperse, without opposing, or becoming attached. ~ demonstrating by example, that a wonderful and fulfilling existence is possible. ~ answering every question appropriately to the questioner's capacity to understand. ~ acting *as if* there was absolute freedom of choice, while recognising spontaneity/wu-wei. ~ understanding that seeking, wishing for, desiring anything, comes at a cost equivalent to what is desired. |
Copyright © 2008 taotiger.com all rights reserved