Discarding Guilt

I've been hesitant to write in this  blog for a while now, because the last time or two that I did write something, I ended up deciding that it was forced and trite and that I didn't have any real inspiration. However, for about a week now I've been thinking about the topic of guilt and specifically how it can lead us to behave with a sort of false honor, and I think it's worth a post. 

Recently, I've been asking myself the question, why do I feel bad so often? I know, I know, this seems like hyperbole. Everyone asks that from time to time, so what? The so what is that more and more, I've been coming to realize that I have the power to feel good. Just to feel good for no reason.

It's usually when I don't have anything to do: when I am waiting for someone or something. There's that voice in the head that says, "Hey, you're waiting for someone. What shit! Doesn't this person know that I have better things to do? Etc." Actually, that voice has been want to crop up for such a long time, that I don't remember when it began! Anyway, I've gradually come to realize that I can just sort of ignore it and when that happens and just feel good. Especially if I am sitting in a chair. Not reading anything, looking at my phone, or twiddling my thumbs--just sitting.

So, because I've been having these isolated incidents of just being content doing nothing, I've been asking myself why I'm not happy at other times. After a bit of self inquiry, I decided that there is a very definite answer: guilt. Okay, perhaps this is going to take some breaking down, but stay with me, I think I'm on to something significant here.

At any moment we have the power to feel good. And here's the secret: you don't have to do anything. You don't have to eat a sandwich or have an orgasm or focus on your breath or anything. It just sort of happens. It's just there. The only trouble is, that we're usually so damn distracted by other shit, that we rarely take a minute to just sit and enjoy that nice feeling.

We are haunted by our own feelings of guilt and they drive us away from that natural peace. The voice inside that says, I should have a nice car and and i-phone and a better job and I should be married by now, etc. But what drives this mental monologue? When we realize that hey, I can just sit and be happy,  why do these thoughts persist? If the happiness we thought we stood to gain by having this thing or that thing is actually at our fingertips, and not contingent on a never ending array of things, why do we continue to persist in the wanting of this luxury item, or that title, or that bit of attention?

Here's my big insight: we live in societies that look down on failure (to get this and achieve that), but forgive it, to some degree, as long as we are good enough to at least feel guilty over having failed. We internalize this attitude and subject ourselves to it. So, if  we discover that buried way deep down we don't actually care that much about having a big party on our birthdays or getting a PHD, we still have to get over this feeling of obligation to appease the expectations for ourselves that society has pressured us into.

When we realize that what think we want for ourselves is not in line with what we actually want, it offers us the chance to take lives into our own hands. We think that we are being "good" boys and girls by allowing ourselves to feel shame on behalf of the expectations of others, because at least then, we entertain a shot at redemption. But if we remember that we can be genuinely happy with nothing, then this impetus to feel guilty very quickly falls away. Then we realize that, hey, we've been deciding to feel guilty all of that time and that the guilt didn't really come from an external source, anyway and we've been the ones hurting ourselves the whole time.

We sometimes think that we have somehow been acting honorable by punishing ourselves when we don't meet society's standards, but to really grow up is to take ownership of our own emotional space, and decide what our own standards are. And if we don't have any standards, and want to just feel happy for the sake of it,that's also our own decision.

If you only allow yourself an amount of happiness based on a comparison of yourself against other people, and how happy they appear, there is a good chance that you're going to be miserable! Better to make up your own mind. You might never fulfill your criteria for deserving happiness. So better change your criteria. It's easy, it doesn't cost anything, and it takes no time at all. What have you got to lose?

Ultimately it's not society that is making these demands on us anyway--it come down to our own egos. When we hold these ideas in out minds, we're creating and sustaining the expectations of society. So say no to that voice that asks for your guilt, because even if you somehow get everything you want, it will always ask for more. 

The Utility of Philosopy

Two of my best friends are philosophers. Not professionally, but they majored in philosophy in school, and they like to talk about the nature of things. Whenever I talk with either of them, naturally, we start talking philosophy. But I rarely feel satisfied after having conversations with either of them. One friend is skeptical towards any uncommon idea, to the point that I cannot convince him to run with me long enough for me to get to the main idea of my argument. The other friend is too willing to accept what I have to say, to the point that my arguments seem meaningless. I sometimes wonder what the hell they get out of it.

I didn't major in philosophy. I majored in English Literature, which probably contributes to my informal, anything goes approach. For me, literature is all about philosophy. After all, all good stories have a theme and they all say something about that theme. Most successful stories say something about morality, even if they don't mean to and I think if there are stories that do not say something about morality, they make some other philosophic claim. I think it's often the case that the greater the story's central insight, the greater the story.

So, I think that philosophy should do something. It doesn't have to always be about morality, but it does have to offer some insights into how we can change our lives for the better in some way. Philosophy is about working out the nature of reality, not about endlessly turning over theories in our minds, saying to ourselves, well, isn`t that curious, and then forgetting about it. Ultimately, if philosophy is not making you happier in some way, not just because it`s a topic to fill conversation, but because of some real and meaningful insight, then you should stop. In ancient Greece, philosophy was exciting. People had all sorts of big ideas and they were willing to explore them, but now, between science and religion, and the existing philosophical traditions, it seems like people think that there is little room left for philosophy, and that in that little space that it is allowed to occupy in out minds, it isn't allowed to do anything that isn't ultimately meaningless.

For me the ultimate goal of philosophy is facilitate a real, significant shift in consciousness, from ignorance of the nature of reality, to a deep and meaningful understanding of it. I'm sure it will sound ironic when I say that ultimate truth is beyond the reach of philosophy, but that it is a powerful tool for achieving this kind of understanding none-the-less. I believe that although philosophy cannot show us the nature of reality directly, it can paint a picture of it by filling in the negative space; it is the very inability of philosophy to communicate ultimate truth directly that allows it to communicate ultimate truth indirectly.

Ultimate truth is unspeakable, but I'm able to communicate the idea that it's unspeakable, and I think that is very significant indeed. For this reason, if nothing else, I think philosophy has a very real and significant utility.

Small Self VS Big Self: The Chicken or the Egg of Conciousness Pt.2

I was sitting in my friend, Dustin's attic bedroom last night, talking philosophy, and I was trying to explain the idea that the universe needs an observer to exist. (I posted an earlier thread about this, which was a dialogue between myself, and my friend Obi.) I don't know how the conversation spiraled into this topic, but it's something I had tried to explain to him before. Anyway, he strongly disagreed with the idea, and he eventually just said that he was done talking about it.

Now, Dustin is a pretty easy going fellow, and not quick to anger, so I wonder what made him so mad. I wonder what made Obi so mad, when I talked about it with him. I understand that the common understanding, at least in the west, is that the universe somehow exists independently of the observer. It's a very intuitive idea, but it was also a very intuitive idea that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that the Sun and the planets all moved around around it, and we all know how that turned out.

But I think that the question about the universe existing without an observer is a far simpler question--you don't need to be an astronomer to puzzle it out. You don't need any kind of specialized knowledge at all. It's just a matter of employing reason.

Imagine I ask someone to show me an orange, and he does. Then I ask them to show me an orange the next day, but that night, I shoot myself with a ray-gun an disintegrate myself completely. The next day, will they still be able to show me the orange? If the answer is "no", then how can I know that the orange is there?

The guy with the orange knows its there, but what happens if HE gets disintegrated with a ray gun?

How can the universe exist without an observer? How can anything exist without an observer? What characterizes it? What shape does it have? How big is it? How can you know it's there if no one notices it?

When you think that the universe exists independent of the self, then it's easy to make the assumption, that the world that you perceive is something you're inhabiting--that you're just a body. But you're not just your body, you're consciousness. The body is perceived by consciousness. Of course the body is the SEAT of consciousness, maybe even the source (though I don't believe this), but you're experiencing the world through the filter of your senses. YOUR senses. If it were possible to somehow experience the universe objectively, my guess is that it would be totally incomprehensible.

Dustin told me that he didn't believe in spirituality and that he didn't understand why I had to analyze everything.

But it seems to me that this is defensiveness. I think there is something attractive to people about imagining themselves as an insignificant speck in a massive universe. I don't know what the attraction IS, but I've seen that when you try to challenge this understanding, otherwise rational people become really upset.

On the other hand, there are real benefits to understanding the universe as an expression of your own awareness. For one thing, when you start to view people as manifestations of your self, a genuine vicariousness naturally springs up, and the need to assert the ego dwindles, and with it the need to create, or be a part of conflict.

When you think about life this way, you take ownership of it. Then you realize the power of judgment and acceptance--you realize that when your are judging someone, you are really judging yourself, and when you are accepting someone, you are really accepting yourself.

If you instead decide to cling to the view of separateness, then what are you? What defines you? Only ego, which is constantly asserting itself to maintain the spell of existence, and often creating great harm as it does so.

No New Religion: I Rescind My Appeal

The first entry in this blog was entitled, "A New Religion for the West", and it was an appeal for just that. Some time has passed since I wrote it, and my philosophy has changed. Now I think that religion should be done away with entirely.

The goal of religion should be to illuminate spiritual truth. I see now that religion can never achieve this end. I say this because I understand spiritual truth from direct experience, and I can say with certainty that religion, like any other concept serves only to obscure truth. Even these words are obscuring truth.

Ultimately no instruction can initiate wisdom. No religion, no science and no philosophy. Throw them away. Don't read another self help book: it won't help you. Advanced yoga poses won't help you. Tai Chi won't help you. Krishnamurti or Krishna or Jesus cannot help you. Offerings of Fanta and oranges will not help you. Getting a doctorate in psychology won't help you, and it won't help you to pay for session from somebody who does.

Don't even meditate. Don't do anything. Wisdom is always here, it's just hidden by all of the shit that is going on in the mind.

You can find wisdom, but you cannot figure it out. If you are trying to understand how to stop suffering, then stop it. The trying to understand is creating the suffering. Religion is built on trying to understand suffering. There are millions of Buddhist monks in the world, who have dedicated their lives to getting enlightened and they never will. Their first problem is that they are trying to get enlightened. Their second problem is that they are Buddhists. No Buddhist was ever enlightened. No Buddhist ever will be enlightened. For one thing, no one gets enlightened. The world gets enlightened and the "one" disappears. Then there is just a guy with a shaved head in an orange robe, staring stupidly with a grin on his face.

SO, I rescind my appeal for a new religion. Any new religion or philosophy, or thing that sits between will probably do just as much harm as good. Drop the religion you have. If you're an atheist, drop your atheism. Drop all the stupid insubstantial ideas that you cling to to define yourself. And if it makes you feel sad or depressed, drop that shit too, and then you will be getting somewhere.

On Want

I was taking a walk and orating to myself. I was trying to work out the nature of want. I decided for the purposes of the argument that there were two kinds of want: the first, a want that immediately and consistently creates a feeling of unpleasantness; incompleteness inside; the second, a kind of want that carries no negative feelings with it.

The fist kind of want, which, I decided was by far the more common form, and along with the feeling of unpleasantness, is characterized by a sort of clinging to the reality that the person wanting wishes to bring about. The person wanting creates a feeling of incompleteness within himself, that he maintains can only be remedied by the acquisition of the goal in question. This is a sort of emotional ransom.

The second kind of want is a kind of “natural wanting”. Instead of clinging to desire and “digging a hole” inside, the person when faced with a desire, does not hold on to it. Instead he observers it impassively, lets it “do its thing” and disappear into from whence it came.

I am using the basis of Buddhism as the foundation for my argument. Here are the four noble truths of the Buddhist tradition, condensed for brevity:

I (The noble truth of suffering): Life, aging, illness, union with the displeasing, separation from the displeasing, and to not get what one wants are suffering.

II: (The noble truth of the origin of suffering): Craving for sensual pleasures, existence and extermination lead to continued existence (and thus suffering).

III (The noble truth of the cessation of suffering): The relinquishment of craving, [leads to] freedom from it, non-attachment..

VI (The noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering): The noble eight-fold path: right view; right intention; right speech; right action; right livelihood ; right effort; right mindfulness; right concentration.

I have been aware of the noble truths for perhaps fourteen years, and even took them as truth by turns, but am only beginning to really understand them now,. What prompted this insight was, actually a sort of abandoning of what I thought was the conventional Buddhist view or Buddhism.

I thought that I should reject all desire. I couldn’t for two reasons: because I kept falling into temptation, and because it wasn’t at all satisfying. It was in this spirit that I decided to try an alternative.

The alternative was inspired by the so called “law of attraction”, which is the basis for a cheesy new-age movie called “The Secret”. The law of attraction, as I understand it, is something like: you get what you project; that whatever thoughts and feelings you are having are going to manifest in the outer world. Some of the cast of “The Secret” went so far as to say that “you get want you want, every time.” The caveat being, that when the universe is doing its thing, and working out your desires and getting them ready to manifest, if you become angry, impatient, or otherwise upset because you haven’t gotten what you want yet, then it will spoil the wish before if comes to fruition.

After watching “The Secret” and a far better researched movie (called “What the *^#&$ Do We Know?), which featured a slew of doctors in various fields (with an emphasis on quantum physics), I decided that I would shelve my skepticism and see if it really works. I used the techniques proscribed in the film, and some of my own, and it worked.

The problem was that doing all of the wanting required to bring about the desired effect, sometimes became tiresome. It seemed like too much effort for too small a reward. The technique implied that the suffering was necessarily a part of desire—this is what I got out of the part about not complaining if the desire did not initially materialize. And I did find it incredibly empowering, but, again, it took an incredible amount to effort to stay focused, without an immediate materialization.

Then the amount of effort required began to mount to the point where I felt unhappy trying to maintain it and I began to ask myself: is this what I really want? And the effort to maintain is it was getting to the point that I was getting bored of it.

Around this time I was having trouble keeping my classes in line. And frustrated with my immediate lack of satisfaction, I decided that however my kids decided to behave that I would have fun and not get angry. Many students acted out, and I had to deal with a lot of problems, but I did it in a creative manner, without getting angry. I ended up having a great day, and I realized that what I really wanted was to be happy, and by constantly testing me, my students gave me a great opportunity to stay focused on THAT desire, despite constant challenges.

The next day, I went on a long walk, and as I mentioned before, began orating to myself about the nature of desire. I decided that the negative “clinging” type of desire could be channeling the law of attraction in disastrous ways—in the mother of tragic ironies, perpetuating the lack of what I really want by clinging to the objects of my desire. The result would be that the more I clung to my desires, the less chance they would have of manifesting. I decided, instead, to stick to the non-clinging type of desire, and found that it was immediately and profoundly gratifying.

Later, I decided there was a third kind to desire—where the clinging was replaced by a sort of optimistic wanting—the kind that requires so much focus and effort. But this is a kind of half way between the clinging, and the non-clinging type of wanting. It may bring about the desired effect, but it’s leaving something out. I’ve learned it’s not as gratifying as the non-clinging type of wanting—which by conventional standards isn’t really wanting at all.

I’ve decided that what’s most important is enjoying the present moment, and since the only thing required for that is the absence of conventional want, then I have unlimited access to it.

Actually, the non clinging kind of want is turning out to be dynamic and fascinating. Instead of deciding what I want and going from there, I’m listening to the natural current of desire. I am following it, and letting it direct my course. It is intensely gratifying, and is giving me powerful insight into the who I am. But the most exciting thing is, what if the law of attraction manifests for this kind of desire as it does with the other kinds? Does it mean unlimited abundance?

I expect—no I’m certain it will. But how exactly will it manifest? And what are the greater implications? As it is, I think I discovered a kind of perpetual ego-killing machine. The more I give up what I think are my desires, and follow what are beginning to look like my ACTUAL desires, the more the ego shrinks. As I follow the desires, the “I” itself becomes weaker.—it becomes the servant to something at once internal AND external.

I feel like I am learning how to work with the universe—to become it’s servant and beneficiary at the same time. I feel like I am working in co-operation with the universe, instead of just asking stuff from it without contributing anything of my own.

Note: this was written last November