Telling Stories About Yourself

It seems to me that the understanding of the world that I've taken three decades to construct is an utter fiction. My mind chatters on about what is so, what is not so, what is expedient, and what is not, and for a very long time, I believed it. Most of the time, I still do. But more and more, I take pause, and think to myself "my God, what is all this nonsense"?

It starts at a very basic level. I assume I am a discrete entity. I assume the world around me is a discrete entity. I have political views, and assumptions about what other people think. I reminisce about a past that is half-forgotten and patched up with assumptions, and feebly try to imagine the future.

My mind is constantly spinning a story out of words, in a desperate attempt to add substance  to life--to try and give it form. Nothing that it says is true. If I care to look, I can see that consciousness, ergo self, ergo life is formless. And that the mind is caught in this habit would be fine...but that somehow, when these stories are believed in, they create a salient feeling of tension, unease, and dissatisfaction. 

When faced with these unpleasant feelings, I do what is natural and try to figure out a way to overcome them. I didn't always do this. When I was younger, I would lash out in anger and blame the world around me, which at the time, I was quite sure I was separate. After doing this a few ten thousand times, I began to notice that that when I projected anger outwards, that I would feel bad. Also, when I succeeded in hurting someone else, I could usually feel their hurt, too. To make matters worse, getting angry almost never, or never got me what I wanted. So, now I try to overcome negative feelings as they arise. 

But this is another trap. How can I overcome these feelings? The mind spins it's web. It argues this point or that point. It makes very good arguments. Sometimes it argues against acting rashly. Sometimes, when I am having a bad day, It makes very good arguments for acting rashly. Either way there is an argument being made. Thankfully, these days most of these internal dialogues get resolved within a few minutes. This is good progress from when I was a teenager, when I would carry on the debates for weeks, months, or even years. And yet I find this extremely worrisome that they are still going on. There is something in me that is milking these little dialogues for all the sour milk it can get.

For what purpose is all of this negative energy being harvested? I've read piles of books on dharma and contemporary spirituality, watched and listened to hundreds of hours of audio and video, from personalities from a variety of disciplines, and the consensus seems to be that, this conflict is needed to sustain the ego--the idea  of the self as something separate. The ego needs to be fed to maintain it's story. It feeds on conflict, because conflict perpetuates the fundamental fallacy that there is a "you" and there is a "the rest of the world".

Everything I believe is a lie. Because it is popular, because I've been bred to do it, and because there was no one there to tell me otherwise, I've come into the habit of clinging to isolated statements, and believing they have significance in an of themselves. Every statement is untrue. Even scientific statements are relative: humans cannot measure the universe objectively, because we cannot witness it objectively. The world as we perceive it is merely a reflection of our own nervous systems. Even that statement is untrue. There is no inherent truth in anything I've written here or anywhere. 

I am, for the most part caught in a never ending story about life. This story is constantly creating suffering, but instead of discarding the story, I created additional passages that justify the suffering; verses that pontificate various means to an end. And when the end doesn't come, the story says, "It will just be a little longer" and "aren't we making progress?" But the stories perpetuate themselves. What a joke! 

The hard truth is there is no ego. It is a fiction created and sustained by the self, which is the entire field of awareness. So all that pain, all that suffering that's in my life. That's me creating it. That's me sustaining it. That's me clinging to it ever hour. And I like to tell myself (and others) that enlightenment is something that takes discipline and devotion, and a particular disposition. It requires none of these things. It requires nothing, but the discontinuation of the story of "me".

So what's your story? What do you tell yourself you need to be happy in life?  How many friends? How many possessions? What degree? How many sexual partners? The romantic devotion of and attachment to exactly what kind of person? What job title? How much cold hard cash?

When you get it, will any of that supersede the story of the ego? 

And by the way, exactly who is going to "get" it, anyway? 

Gross Karma, Subtle Karma

Karma. What does that mean?

For most people I know, karma is this wishy-washy idea that what you do comes back to you. Some people say flat out that it's nonsense, but most seem to identify with some aspect of it. Usually, it seems to me, there is a kind of hesitant belief in it, without really understanding what it means. 

Well, karma means "action": plain and simple. But what from whence comes this assumption that action influences that future? 

Well, it sounds absurd when I put it like that. I know if I buy milk and a banana in the evening, my morning cereal will be a lot more enjoyable. I know that if I buy my friend a coffee on Monday, he may buy me a beer on Saturday. No one in their right mind would deny this sort of gross cause and effect. 

But what if we do good things and no one notices? Can we expect that our kindness will be repaid by some benevolent mystical force? 

Well..yeah, sort of. It depends on what you mean by "good things". 

And there is a difference between doing good things with an open heart and doing good things with a closed heart. If I leave an envelope full of money in a poor neighborhood, with the sole motivation of reaping the karmic benefits, it may be just as well to spend that money on something for myself. 

You have to give with an open heart to reap karmic fruit. You must be truly vicarious, because it's the vicariousness  itself, that generates the good karma--and I don't think it's too hard to see why. When you feel genuinely joyful at the thought of other people's happiness, it's like any other kind of happiness--it makes you feel happy! 

Here's where the western mind gets suspicious--it's the idea that the present happiness is creating favorable conditions in the future. If you think of yourself as separate from the world as a whole, the idea seems fucking crazy. However, if you see yourself as a not separate from the universe as a whole, this kind of cause and effect seems perfectly natural. 

For me, the reach of karma extends into mere thought. Of course, it's a worthwhile practice to cultivate peaceful thinking for it's own sake, but sometimes its seems very difficult. Negative thoughts creep in, and say that it's futile. It's at these moments that I take comfort in the idea that I am every second creating my future, on a very subtle level. 

God Within, God Without.

It seems at first glance that the Abrahamic religions have little in common with the Eastern traditions of Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, particularly because the former describe an external God and the latter emphasize the God-nature within all of us. Are these traditions speaking of different phenomenon? How can they be reconciled?

I contend that they are speaking about the same phenomenon. The primary difference being, the Western religions take the perspective of the ego, and the Eastern religions take the perspective of awareness. In the New Testament, Jesus references his "father who art in heaven". That God is nothing but awareness, and Jesus is the ego. In Buddhism, no such God figure exists. Instead there is Buddha nature, which all Buddhists hope to realize. This is done, essentially through the realization of no-self. So, from the Buddhist approach, instead submission of the ego, or personal self, to God, that ego is merely examined closely, and seen as illusory.

In Buddhism enlightenment means non-duality. The same message is present in The Bible. In John 14, Jesus says,

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. ¹¹ Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me..."



This passage show that Jesus didn't believe in a God that was separate from his own self. This is the same as the realization of Buddha nature. And in the gospel of Luke, Jesus talks about heaven on Earth. This is can be seen as the same thing as nirvana. "Knowing God", and similarly be thought of   as enlightenment. And according to the ancient Greek, Jesus is not "the" son of God, he is "a" son of God. In Buddhism there is a contrast between self and no-self; ignorance and enlightenment, whereas in Christianity, there is a contrast between God and man. The languages are a little different, but it seems to me that they express the same idea.

I think this fundamental concept of  unity is the keystone of most, if not all the world's significant religions. Likewise, it appears in contemporary spiritual traditions. Ramana Mahrishi, the great 20th Indian Sage of Tamil Nadu spoke of the same phenomenon. He implored seekers to find the source of the "I" thought, and to contemplate it. He and his teachings are responsible for the "Neo Advaita Vedanta" movement which is becoming popular on the American west coast. Eckhart Tolle, the author of the acclaimed Power of Now urges his readers to "aware in the present moment", and thus have the "self talk" dwindle away, and so removing the ego and seeing reality as it is.   

You can phrase the phenomenon is many different, ways, but the goal of spiritual traditions, is to recognize the difference between identifying with the isolated idea of the person you think you are versus the entire field awareness. There is no separate self, because that awareness is a verb, and not a noun. The idea, that noun, of who you think you are exists within that awareness, and it is dependent upon that awareness to exist at all.
It's like there are two selves: there is the fake self that an amalgamation of  personality, life story and your body; and then there is the real self which is formless, which perceives the fake self. The unreal self is essentially a conglomeration of thoughts that must be constantly maintained in order to continue to exist. The real self is formless and eternal. This is the essential message of all genuine prophets throughout the ages.

Realizing non-duality leads to extraordinary peace, because when you no longer see yourself as separate, there is no more "me vs them". Then if conflict does arise, it can be seen one immediately takes responsibility for it. Instead of thinking what a terrible world it is that has put me into this situation, one becomes empowered, and realizes that there is no separate world out there punishing oneself; there is only a particular circumstance, which has arisen of it's own accord. From this way of thinking there are no victims. Essentially this is the same as consigning your will to God. In my opinion, devoting one's self to God is not the full realization, because there is there is still a self to submit...but then again, if the submission is absolute, then perhaps there is no difference. 

When you realize that it's all just you, there is no longer need to attain anything. If you can see that wherever you are and whatever you are doing, you are complete, then it's a small step to realize that unhappiness is caused be the tension we create in the body when we mentally cling to the material things that we do not have. From there you can realize that you have the choice to hang on to your unfulfilled desires, or to simply let them go. It's mere choice. What is there to fear but death? And what is death but the breaking up of the body? No one knows what happens at the time of death, but it's only a problem if you're identified with the body. Therefore, even though I am not Christian, perhaps I can agree that when someone dies, he goes to heaven.

People have been realizing God consciousness and non-duality, at least since there has been writing--and it seems a bit silly not to assume they have been before then. The experience is constantly being rediscovered and expressed in different terms. But if it's genuine, it's the same phenomenon, of discovering one's own true nature:oneness; peace; love; whatever.

Thoughts on Death

I've heard it said that all fear comes from the root fear of death. It stands to reason. It seems to me that most people will cite death as their biggest fear, and if you die, then you're presumably free from all other fears. I'm beginning to wonder, however, if all this fear of death is warranted.

Most people believe that after they die, there will be some kind of afterlife, or they will reincarnate, or alternatively, that there just won't be anything.

Well, if there if there is an afterlife, then why should one worry? Some people will fear that they will go to Hell when they die, but I think the vast majority of people that believe in the "afterlife" as such, think that they will be going on to the land of milk and honey. If this is a genuine belief, then why all the apprehension surrounding death? Why not view it as a celebration?

For those who believe in reincarnation, it seems that their attitude toward death should be informed by their current life situation--that is, if they are enjoying life, then they should have a certain amount of apprehension toward death, but otherwise, they should look forward to it.

For those who think that death is the end, full stop, why should there be any worry about about it one way or the other? Such people sometimes claim to have a greater appreciation of life than people with alternate ideas on death, but I find this reasoning questionable. Such people are completely identified with the body, so if the body is in constant pain, then death seems preferable.

So, are the only people that have a really good reason to fear death the people that believe they will go on to live in torment for eternity?

Regardless of the choice of the above beliefs, there often remains a fear of the loss of self. I think that's the core of people's fear of death. Loss of self. But what does that mean? What is this self, anyway?

Is self the body? Although this is, intuitively, what many people seem to think, how can this be so? The body is flesh and blood. It is gross matter. Is is this gross matter that is perceiving the world around it? No, that's absurd. Matter is something that is perceived, it's not perception itself. Is this not obvious? Maybe we can say that consciousness is shaped by the brain, but who's to say that the brain isn't shaped by consciousness? Some of  assume that there cannot be consciousness without the brain, but can there be a brain without consciousness? I'm not trying to be "cute" here. This is a legitimate question. 

If self is the result of a living body, then it would make sense to assume that when the body dies, there is a dissipation of self. Perhaps this is so. But perhaps self, that is consciousness (as opposed to an identity) is not the result of a living body.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to suggest this. I think many people assume it, without knowing it: when you bring up death they will say: an eternity of nothing? Who wants that? But this line of reasoning assumes a witness--someone to experience that nothing.

How can consciousness be created? How can it disappear? Can it?

The fact is that whatever our personal beliefs about death, no one really knows what is going to happen. All that we know is that the bodies that some of us identify with as self will die. That's it. And if that's the end of consciousness forever, then so what? As Mark Twain famously said, (loose paraphrase) being nothing didn't bother me for billions of years before I was born, why should it bother me after I die?

For the record, I do not think death is the end. I think that consciousness is eternal, and it's form that is impermanent. So, when we die that's the end of our personalities, but consciousness lives on, formless and infinite. After all, that's what it's like to be nothing.

Destiny

I had a funny thought last night. I was thinking about destiny, specifically, is there such thing? An answer popped into my mind, "of course there is!" Then I laughed like a crazy person. Obviously there is such a thing a destiny; destiny is the word we use to describe the series of events that happened earlier in our lives that led us to where we are now.

If you're not laughing right now, I'll try to explain...

Things turned out they way happened to turn out. Could they have turned out differently? No--they  couldn't have. The proof: they turned out the way they did and not some other way.  I know, it's a ridiculous answer. But of course it's a ridiculous answer, because it answers a ridiculous question.

You might object and suggest the destiny question is really about free will. But what is free will? Free will has layers. There is the free will of a normal human being who is driven by ego, and there is the free will of an enlightened human being, who has no ego... so we have to get into relative and ultimate causes, which can get very complicated very quickly.  

So, instead of trying to answer that question, I'll ask YOU a question: what exactly is free will?

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.