An Old Thought Resurrected

     While looking through some old flash-drives I ran across a folder containing this journaled moment in a meditation that seemed worthy of a late entry. The date is uncertain but I estimate it was made approximately 8 years ago when I moved to Southern Dharma and began journaling about many of my experiences. Dharma was my dog.

*******

      Yesterday I made the remark that Dharma had died so that I could  make this journey. And today, all of a sudden, I realized that this is exactly what Christians say about Christ. So I asked myself if I meant the same thing. Do I mean that Dharma knowingly, willingly, and with intent, caused or was instrumental, in getting a tumor so that I might move to the mountains?  No! Of course not; so what exactly do I mean by that?
     Well, I mean that her death made it easier for me to make this move; I couldn't take her with me, and my heart would not allow me to give her away. She was an active part of my life up to that time, and in fact, she was part of me. 
     Now what do I mean by that? In what way can a dog be a part of me? I guess I mean that because she was influential in my life, that she was a catalyst for me to change in numerous ways which helped me become the person I am today (however large or small a way that might be) - she has been an active influence in my life. In the same way that we might say that 'who we are is what we do' - or that 'what we think is who we are' -  then in a similar way, her effect on me makes her part of me. In some way we are the same; she is me. And, I suppose, I am her as well. (Though I’m still not totally clear on what that means right now, it feels accurate if not easily explained.) And I suppose the Christians can maintain in the same way, that if Jesus gave his life for them, then He is a part of them as well. I personally can not. But I can see, intellectually at least, how it might work for them.
  So, leaving all religious argument aside, it would seem that spiritually speaking, what I was meaning was that Dharma’s effect on my life makes her a part of my life; a part of me. This makes sense to me at some level beyond the merely intellectual. It seems to correspond with the idea that we are all connected in life - by life itself - even if we are talking about someone or some thing which is twice, x10, or a million times, removed. Regardless of time or distance, the idea is that everything is connected, and those people or things which are close enough in proximity to directly affect us, to make an impact on our existence, or to influence our lives in some way, are actually a large part of us through this impact.
     Now this does not make as much sense as it did when I was just thinking it, but it does bring me to the second thing I was thinking. If I look at a picture of Dharma, or Christ, or my parents, or anything that I see as being influential in me being where I am today, then I am honoring them, or it, by my being alive as I am today. And this is perhaps at least one meaning of, or reason for, an object on an alter. (Granted there are those who would find this overly simplistic and ridiculous, but it is one way of looking at it: one way it is meaningful to have something on an altar and talk to it or silently offer one’s gratitude.)
     Let me take this a step further. What about the cabbage I am preparing to eat? The breath of air I am about to take, or for that matter anything which I am about to make use of? Does this act not require, in the same way, a manner of gratitude to the cabbage or the air, for giving itself to us, to benefit us? I mean it seems to me that once again I can get caught in the word game and say that a cabbage can’t choose to give itself to me, or that it is just there for me to use (or if I really want to be Christian I can say that God put it there for me to use). Let’s forget this mind game where we give responsibility to God and, for a moment think about this as a new idea - a new meaning for "a sense of connection." The idea that perhaps the cabbage may be here for me but also, that I am here for the cabbage as well – this is interesting. 
     Perhaps the Buddhist idea of "skillful means" in this instant can refer to the fact that the cabbage, the air, or anything we put our proverbial hands on in this life are affected for good or ill by our actions. Now our decisions with regard to these issues, and our subsequent actions, are personal. Each of us must make our own decisions as to how we are to proceed in life. But it seems to me that the manner in which we grow our crops will affect the cabbage on our table, the decisions we make about our air will have a direct effect on our health and the health of future generations. What the cabbage can give to us depends upon what we give to it, and it is no less true that the air can only give us what we give to it. This is the interconnectedness to which I speak. Dharma gave me a gift - her life - that I might more easily move to where I am and to honor that gift I find myself incumbent upon giving her, in my life, the gift of passing on her teachings to others.

     We are one with all things and they with us. Therefore it makes sense to honor those things we use, or take from the natural world, as the Native Americans have done. It seems like a reasonable idea all of a sudden, to say “thank you” before we eat the food in front of us, or simply take a moment to be mindful of where it came from and how we are connected to it. Not to a God that gives, but to the process by which we are sustained in this life. Perhaps we are actually all here to be used by one another – plant, animal, and human alike – and all must act and accept, according to that imperative. When the unknown virus devours human life or a natural calamity swallows a whole city in the middle of the night, we will then be the food for life. Perhaps it is only through "skillful means’" and a practice of gratitude that we can find true peace amid this truth.

Alexander Pope and Blaise Pascal: A Comparison

"Know then thyself, presume not God to scan:
The proper study of mankind is man.
Plac’d upon this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise and rudely great.
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic’s side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic’s pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a God or beast;
In doubt his mind or body to prefer.
Born but to die and reasoning but to err’
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little or too much,
Chaos of thought and passion, all confused;
Still by himself abused or disabused.
Created half to rise and half to fall,
Great lord of all things yet prey to all.
Sole judge of truth, in endless error hurled,
The glory jest and riddle of the world." --  Alexander Pope                             

     The following is from the writings of Blasé Pascal who died in 1662. It is hard to imagine that Pope did not know what had been written by a Frenchman up to possibly 100 years before. And it is even more exciting to think that they came to these conclusions separately and yet voiced them in a manner suggesting conspiracy. These were taken from a book by Maurice Friedman titled The Worlds Of Existentialism: A Critical Reader. Italics is mine.

Blaise Pascal:
"Whoso takes this survey of himself will be terrified at the thought that he is upheld in the material being, given him by nature, between these two abysses of the infinite and nothing, he will tremble at the sight of these marvels…
For after all what is man in nature? A nothing in regard to the infinite, a whole in regard to nothing, a mean between nothing and the whole; infinitely removed from understanding either extreme. The end of things and their beginnings are invincibly hidden from him in impenetrable secrecy, he is equally incapable of seeing the nothing whence he was taken, and the infinite in which he is engulfed.
What shall he do then, but discern somewhat of the middle of things in an eternal despair of knowing either their beginning or their end…?
Let us know our limits: we are something, but we are not all. What existence we have conceals from us the knowledge of first principles which spring from the nothing, while the pettiness of that existence hides us from the sight of the infinite….
Restricted in every way, this middle state between two extremes is common to all our weaknesses.
Our senses can perceive no extreme. Too much noise deafens us, excess of light blinds us, to great distance or nearness equally interfere with our vision, prolixity or brevity equally obscure a discourse, too much truth overwhelms us…..
In a word, all extremes are for us as though they were not; and we are not, in regard to them: they escape us, or we them.
This is our true state; this is what renders us incapable both of certain knowledge and of absolute ignorance. We sail on a vast expanse, ever uncertain, ever drifting, hurried from one to the other goal. If we think to attach ourselves firmly to any point, it totters and fails us; if we follow, it eludes our grasp, and flees us, vanishing forever. Nothing stays for us. This is our natural condition, yet always the most contrary to our inclination; we burn with desire to find a steadfast place and an ultimate fixed basis whereon we may build a tower to reach the infinite. 
We may not then look for certainty or stability. Our reason is always deceived by changing shows, nothing can fix the finite between the two infinites, which at once enclose and fly from it…..
Were man to begin with the study of himself, he would see how incapable he is of proceeding further……
Man is to himself the most marvelous object in Nature, for he cannot conceive what matter is, still less what is mind, and less than all how a material body should be united to a mind. This is the crown of all his difficulties, yet it is his very being." 

The Misery of Man
"We care nothing for the present. We anticipate the future as too slow in coming, as if we could make it move faster: or we call back the past, to stop its rapid flight. So imprudent are we that we wander through the times in which we have no part, unthinking of that which alone is ours: so frivolous are we that we dream of the days which are not, and pass by without reflection those which alone exist. For the present generally gives us pain; we conceal it from our sight because it afflict us, and if it be pleasant we regret to see it vanish away. We endeavor to sustain the present by the future, and think of arranging things not in our power, for a time at which we have no certainty of arriving.
If we examine our thoughts, we shall find them always occupied with the past or the future. We scarcely think of the present, and if we do so, it is only that we may borrow light from it to direct the future. The present is never our end; the past and the present are our means, the future alone is our end. Thus we never live, but hope to live, and while we always lay ourselves out to be happy, it is inevitable that we can never be so."
Now this last part (Misery of Man) really sounds so much like the Zen I know that it is amazing. It seems to me to support the notion that there is a “truth” within man’s consciousness that ties us all together existentially and clearly speaks to the One-ness we have so much trouble getting our mind around.
I also find this next paragraph a particularly well put description of one aspect of the human condition. And we think we are so evolved…..like Pope said, we are, “the glory, jest, and riddle of the world.”

Of Self-love:

The nature of self-love and of this human “I” is to love self only, and consider self only. But what can it do? It cannot prevent the object it loves from being full of faults and miseries; man would fain be great and sees that he is little, would fain be happy, and sees that he is miserable, would fain be perfect, and sees that he is full of imperfections, would fain to be the object of love and esteem of men, and sees that his faults merit only their aversion and contempt. The embarrassment wherein he finds himself produces in him the most unjust and criminal passion imaginable, for he conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults. Desiring to annihilate it, yet unable to destroy it in its essence, he destroys it as much as he can in his own knowledge, and in that of others; that is to say, he devotes all his care to the concealment of his faults, both from others and from himself, and he can neither bear that others should show them to him, nor that they should see them.

Let's Begin Again

     It seems that being required to purchase a new computer has lured me back to my long deserted blog. I can't explain why exact but so be it! I will try again share my psychic space with all who are bored enough to follow along.
     While perusing previously highlighted portions of Alan Clements book, Instinct For Freedom, I ran across two quotes - one his and the other by Martin Luther King - that were some 20 pages apart but rang my eureka-bell. I have always had a difficult time finding a clear understanding of Dr. Kings statement but when I read both in closer proximity to one another....well let me try to explain.
      Clements wrote, "As the theory goes, freeing the mind of one's primordial ignorance is considered a great act of compassion."  A personal note in the margin said, "Think about why?" And immediately I remembered reading, some minutes earlier, the statement by Martin Luther King. "All persons are tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly....I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be, and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." 
     First let's think about the idea of primordial ignorance. I have come to recognize that our most basic ignorance, or simply - our failure - is to readily see that life is never alone. That is, all that we commonly refer to as life is not a group of individual, separate and unique, items that exist unconnected to one another. Life is a living tapestry - or as Dr. King wrote, a "single garment." And as a result the destiny of each, apparently separate, individual (or thread) in that tapestry is affected by every other thread. Each thread, each living organism in that cosmic tapestry is inexplicably connected to every other organism. We each happen to be but one such thread; a biologically dependent, myth-making mammal in a vast universe of living, interconnected, diversity. Each act by any thread in the garment (through what we know as cause and effect) impacts, directly and indirectly, each thread in the garment. And our primordial ignorance is the biochemical constitution that makes seeing this fact not only counter-intuitive but, confusing and very difficult to imagine and accept.
     It is for this reason that freeing the mind of this ignorance is to be considered a great act of compassion. It is an act that requires choice and a determined, intentional effort to pull back the shroud of our own ignorance in order to achieve the compassion that awaits our labor. And if we recognize that we are part of this enormous, living, interconnected process of life and death, and that what we can become is forever intertwined with others - and others with me - like the threads of a vast tapestry of all different colors, shapes, and sizes -- then and only then can I become all that I am able to be; that is the destiny of which he spoke. 
     And it is the very nature of this process that eludes us and imprisons us within the confines of our biological heritage. Our freedom however is not impossible to achieve. Just as many wise men and women have noted, the world is created by each of us within our minds. And the key is the freeing of our minds from the ignorance that plagues us all. It does, as always, begin with me. For I can't change others directly. I can only change myself directly but when I do, there is an indirect affect on all who I interact with, as stated by Dr. King  --"whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly."
     So, I am left with, once again another moment of clarity that will surely slip from my awareness once more, as I continue to struggle to see the mountain that is no longer a mountain and bring it back to my everyday vision of my world and the interrelated structure of reality.

Who am I?

Who am I? Actually the better question is "what" is this "I" that Bob is so attached to?

      Back in 2011 I besieged your mind with an inquiry in order to articulate the process by which the self is born. Today I would like to restate my position in a far more concise fashion. I've been away for some time and perhaps this will jump start a new era (era?) of journaling. That said I give you the latest articulation on "who" or "what" I am.

      “I” am named Bob. And Bob is an impermanent, evolving aggregate, born within a specific sequence of DNA, which includes an experiential history, which is comprised of actions and outcomes, which are  interpreted and reinforced by self-referential dialogue. 

A Dialogue

      The following dialogue was excerpted from an ongoing communication with a friend in Asheville wherein we joust back and forth on any number of topics. For clarity I offer it with my friends comments highlighted and MY REPLYs noted as such.
      I think a major difficulty in accepting that Nirvana is here and now is that if one takes this seriously, one is likely to respond: “Yikes! You mean this is it? There ain't nuthin' else? What a disappointment!” I read someone write that spiritual practice represents a mental sickness and the role of the teacher is to show the student that his/her practice is useless and the only thing keeping the student from enlightenment is the student's very thinking that there is such a thing as enlightenment.
 MY REPLY: I am in 100% agreement that this is a situation that arises quite often. It doesn’t mean that one ceases to practice, but rather that they realize that their grasping after an end result, making it something “out there,” only causes them to miss the experience itself.
      I’m fairly sure I wrote this sometime in the past but my realization about this issue was when I was driving down a long stretch of highway in which there was no street-illumination, and the distance I was traveling consisted of many long, gradual curves. It was late at night and I could see the reflection of city lights rising up from the horizon against the dark sky. At some point I realized that if I maintained my sight on the lights along my circuitous path, I would surely find myself careening off the highway into a tree or at least some remote part of the countryside. That I needed to keep my eye on the road itself in order to safely achieve my goal, became apparent. Luckily this experience was not lost in relation to other parts of my life.
      The manner in which the Master expressed his teaching was extreme and lends itself to rejection, but the truth remains. If I ignore the present and focus on my goal at the expense of the present, moment to moment process, I am likely to forever miss the desired end.
      That's one valid point of view though it sounds a little cynical to me.
      MY REPLY: I don’t think it is cynical at all. It speaks to the fact that if I am so intent on arriving at some pre-ordained state or place, I will miss the process or steps that actually lead me there, as expressed in “to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive and the true success is in the labor.” – Robert L Stevenson.
      The reason this is true in Bob-ism, is that what Nirvana is, is a state of mind - or "be-ing" if you will - a be-ing that is manifested here and now, not there and then. It is one of the beautiful, subtle truths that are pointed to in the seemingly arcane and paradoxical teachings in Zen.
      That Nirvana is here and now: one reads that from time to time. To me it sounds a little like the Christians who say that Heaven is here; we just have to open our eyes.
      MY REPLY: I believe that those two statements are identical even though they are from such dissimilar ideologies. They mean the exact same thing to me.
      Or that all you need to do to be saved is to accept that you're saved.
      MY REPLY:Well, if we are able to see that what we understand as our life arises from our attitudes, and thoughts about it, then it’s ontologically reasonable. If you believe you are saved, since there is no overt proof of such an assertion being possible (a matter of faith), then your believing trumps all.
      They all have the same logic and maybe they're all true.
      MY REPLY: I’m not sure about what you mean by “we all have the same logic?” If that were true we wouldn’t argue with the logic some people use to explain those ideas we determine to be in opposition to our own???
      How can Nirvana be here and now and also not be here and now?
      MY REPLY: If nirvana is not interpreted as a static location outside the mind, but rather a posture, here and now - resulting from the extinction of the root cause of whatever our dis-ease may be (say, grasping-after or non-acceptance) - we will have an opportunity to see clearly the path to liberation in this life.
      My statement implies that the goal, in this case Nirvana or Heaven, is not here for me in this moment since I am being told to do something in order for it to be manifested at some point. And if we remember that there is no tomorrow but rather just Now, then arriving at the place where Nirvana/Heavens reward arises in my life, it too will be Now. So it is achievable in the here and now, and at the same time I do not have it here and now because I am in the process of achieving it. When the object is found, the search ends, and this will always be Now. The way this is understood in Bob-ism is as follows.
      If we are able to understand Nirvana/Heaven as a new way of being-in-the-world, wherein we embrace or absorb the impact of the constant flow of data upon our senses with emotional and intellectual equanimity (the distinguishing characteristic of nirvana), we will be without judgment (attraction or aversion) and our suffering/dissatisfaction will be extinguished (to the limited degree possible for a physical being).
     This equanimity requires us to see deeply into the connection between four very important truths about our existence - Impermanence, Emptiness, No-self, and Dependent-Arising - and how they are manifested in our everyday life. Or in the words of Christmas Humphreys in his book, A Western Approach to Zen, (pg.182), “Zen does not deliver us from the conditions of manifestation; it enables us to deal with them efficiently."
      Nirvana, samsara, enlightenment – all these are illusions created by our dualistic mental processes. They are illusions in the sense that there is no separate, identifiable essence inherent in them (unless one chooses to identify this essence as their referents). They are as “fingers pointing to the moon” – thoughts or ideas that represent something, and in this case, a process; a path out of the woods. “Posture is everything.” - Japanese Zen master, Shunryu Suzuki.
      So I think this explains what seems to be an unacceptable paradox. Nirvana or enlightenment are not places, so in that sense they don’t exist, they are illusory notions. However, at the same time they are achievable postures with which we embrace the ever-changing onslaught of experiences that assail us as we go through our lives in each present moment. In doing so, we find that an emotional and intellectual “middle ground” can be achieved in the Now. And when we reach this middle ground and it becomes our of way of relating to the world as presented to us, we will no longer be thinking, feeling, and acting from the previous perspective. Thus I hear the sages advice to “be the change you want to see in the world, and your world will change.”
      And in order to comment on this difference or change, we will have to step out of the present perspective in order to objectify it. They can now be seen as two separate realms, realities, or whatever term suits one’s way of ordering one’s experiences. But the entire process is achieved in this present lifetime.
      Now this is just the tip of the iceberg, but suffice it to say that it is achieved in the “here and now.” One must not get caught in the trap of thinking that by “here and now,” one should expect to have an instantaneous liberation. The reference to here and now is intended to counter the idea of after-life acquisition and to help us stay focused on this existence, and to work diligently.
      Just as when tomorrow comes it will always be here and now, today - so it is not an “is that all there is” situation as you alluded to earlier. But rather, it is a journey wherein one changes gradually as a result of the effort put forth until one suddenly realizes there are changes that he/she didn’t notice as their practice proceeded. It is just another answer to the previously noted comments by teachers about not focusing on some idea or evaluative understanding of enlightenment or nirvana or heaven, but to just practice with one’s nose firmly entrenched in the present.
      What are we really meaning here? That one “enters” Nirvana if one just drops all one's hang-ups and anxieties?
       MY REPLY: First, the term "enter" is misleading as you may have surmised by what I’ve suggested above. There is no need to consider entering something that is always present. In this case it presents as a “possibility,” if one lives through an appropriate practice.
      And second, if one always thinks in simple terms likes hang-ups and anxieties instead of focusing on the actual work to be done involving a deeper understanding of Impermanence, No-self, Emptiness, and Contingent-Arising as they specifically relate to one’s life - as well as daily experiences wherein we attempt to nurture the ideas of Compassion and Tolerance, and attempt to become more experientially aware of our own Grasping, Aversion, Judging, Anger, and Fear (just a cursory list) - it will all remain rhetorical. To focus on terms like “hang-ups” and “anxieties,” while they are colloquially acceptable, they are also dismissive of the depth and value of what is pointed to with the use of the terms mentioned above.

The Ultimate Parasite

      On one of my daily walks I found a caterpillar furiously trekking toward the other side of the driveway. As most children do, I bent down and used a small stick to alter his journey and before long he had turned completely around and was headed off the driveway into the grass. I continued my daily Medicare stroll, and as is often the case, a thought whispered that I might have saved a life by this little redirection; perhaps to metamorphose into a beautiful butterfly, or become food for another in the cycle of life. And before long, just as if it were a dream, my train of thought switched to human existence and the delusional webs we weave as explanations for life.
      Mankind is the only animal we know of with the ability to imagine a past and a future. This ability has served us well and has great benefit in the present. However, it brings with it a dark side in the form of anxiety, fear, and greed which gives birth to anger, wars, and all forms of myopic behavior. For instance, we have behind us centuries of religious texts that posit man as the “ultimate animal” anointed by god or gods, as the rightful heir to the thrown of the almighty. Few are willing to recognize that we are actually just another parasite here on our "third rock from the sun.”
      I’m not suggesting that this isn’t rational for us. It seems quite logical given the brain we have to work with; the one which is responsible for everything we imagine or experience. It’s miraculous in its own right; but seriously compromised as well. In the words of Alexander Pope we are the animal “created half to rise, and half to fall; great lord of all things, yet prey to all.” And it is my belief that we, as a species are continually “falling” short on using what would seem to be our greatest asset: reason. Century after century we seem unable to look inside our own attitudes, fears, and greed, in order to recognize our true nature; parasites in a world wherein we truly are the “intellectual" lords over all. Yet we seem unable to act in accord with our position.
      There is the concept of Contingent (or Mutual) Arising which informs a real and in my mind, accurate description of existence. Simply stated it posits that all things arise only in conjunction with conditions that precede it. Nothing appears on its own or unconnected. No thing arises from nothing. All of existence is contingent upon conditions that form the ground out of which all things arise. It is a statement of process, not miraculous appearance. It eliminates any rational argument regarding First Cause for those who find the whole issue beyond an ability to conceive of without falling back on anthropomorphic rhetoric.
      So let’s examine the connection between this idea that all things are connected in a “continual web of creation” in which each contingency is further connected to other causes or conditions, and the idea that the human being is a parasitic entity. But first let’s be clear about what I mean by the term parasite. Normally the term brings to mind all sorts of frightening creatures. But I want to let go of these characterizations and ask to what the term really refers. What does the term parasite mean?
      One such definition is an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. And just so we don’t get sidetracked at the beginning, allow me to identify the human being as an organism, and further defined as “a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.” I hope there is no confusion in stating that we are a form of life so composed. I would suggest that as this human organism we:

1) Live on and within the mutually interdependent parts/species of our physical world.

2) That it would be accurate to refer to our physical world as our “host.”

3) And that all the nutrients that sustain human life come from this host.

So as an organism we have met the criteria for being parasites. That is, we exist by and through the very process that defines parasitic activity.
       There is another definition for parasite that I believe is worth noting. It states: a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
       I call attention to the part of this definition which states that after receiving support or advantage they do so without giving any useful or proper return. This is an interesting distinction that can be made concerning the human being and sets us apart from all other forms of life that flourish.
      We tend to believe ourselves to be the “great lord of all things” and in our taking, we have convinced ourselves that we needn’t be part of the symbiotic relationships in life. We take and use until there is depletion, extinction, or destruction; and our minds are so deluded by myth that we believe it our right to do so.
      I think it would behoove us to recognize that life will survive without us. And it occurs to me that it may have to eliminate us in order to do so. The parasite that doesn’t give back to the process that supports it, will be eliminated……that seems to be the real “great lord of all things.”
      Or in the words of Stephen Batchelor, "In dissolving this view through a vision of the world as a dynamic and interrelated whole of which we are an integral part, we are likewise freed to engage with the world afresh.” ---Buddhism Without Beliefs.

A Boy Just Like Me

      It was many years ago and some things seem to change very slowly. I made my way through the parked cars, enjoying the bright afternoon sun. The leaves were beginning to turn dull and fluttered against the crisp blue sky. Stretching the kinks out of my legs, I took a deep breath. My lungs screamed betrayal as the smell of burned cooking fat rode the cool September breeze from the dumpster across the parking lot.
      As I approached the drive-thru lane a young man carefully backed through the glass door and turned in my direction. The remains of a Value-meal box in his right hand, his left shoulder dipped downward toward the whining ball of flesh that he held firmly by the hand.
      “Come on now,” he pleaded, “You’ve got to stand up.”
      The boy’s rebellion reminded me of an outraged chimpanzee. Legs curled up into his stomach, he dangled at the end of his father’s arm. A vanilla complexion now scarlet against his long blonde hair, and with eyes closed in a grimace of wrinkles, he flailed against his father’s grip.
      His father continued in a calm clear voice, “Come on now, stand up like a big boy.”
      As if in a vision, there I was whirling in outrage against life with eyes locked tight against everything around me. Kicking and screaming against the firm hand of an unflinching world. And how I was so often like this little boy, with vision clenched behind a wall of anger, unable to grasp the depth of my sufferings.

How I Was Born

      In the Guy Ritchie film Revolver, I was treated to a compelling, if not mind-bending, commentary on one man’s journey to transcend the power and influence of the human ego. The movie itself serves as a training film for those who are serious about winning mankind’s greatest battle, and arguably the real “war to end all wars.”
      The human brain is the seat of our ability to experience a distinction between the “seer and the seen.” With each sensory experience there is a biological imperative at work. Some may call it “dualism,” others, the “Principle of Complementarity,” or even the “Uncertainty Principle.” Whatever name best suits your philosophical profile, the process is the same.
      When the human organism registers a sensation, the resulting psychic experience is processed on two fronts: one is objective and the other is subjective. And though we may speak as though these two modes of experience are separate, they seem to arise simultaneously – even from day-one. We need but to observe the young child. His behaviors suggest the presence an innate perspective dictating a sense that whatever he observes belongs to him. If he touches the toy it’s his alone, and any suggestion of sharing is initially met with disturbing results. (Then again perhaps it’s a bit naïve to equate this kind of behavior with only the young – it seems to be something all too human regardless of age.) As the child becomes molded by his culture and familial environment, he is able to recognize that just because the bedroom light goes out it isn’t a personal attack on his existence. His experience testifies that if he goes to sleep tonight, he will awaken in the morning. Our brains function in such a way as to make itself believe that it is the center of all that is surveyed. How does this happen?
      What causes this ego-centric or self-centered perspective regardless of education or age? A moment of honest introspection as well as self-observation over time, shows us that any attempt at living a spiritual life is forever handicapped by this selfishness. Ancient philosophers and theologians have gone to great lengths to advise us of this self-evident fact. We function as self-conscious beings and require an experiential antidote to grow beyond this - dare I say it - innate, egoistic perspective. This is an easy thing to suppose, but how can we really understand it?
      In order to explore this for ourselves let us first accept a simple premise or two: the brain is the field out of which our difficulties arise and that our self-centered perspective is hard-wired within that miraculous lump of grey matter sitting between our ears. From here we could begin our analysis with any sensate experience, but sight seems the easiest with which to relate, so let’s begin there.
      When I look at any object there are two things that occur - at a speed so fast, I think it’s reasonable for us to say - at the same time. There is the object observed – in this case, let’s say a horse – and there is also an awareness of this “act of seeing” the horse. The awareness may not always be the focus of our conscious attention, but it is nevertheless always present, enabling us to focus our attention on it if we wish.
      So without going too far out on a philosophical limb, I think we can say that the brain informs itself, simultaneously, of an awareness of action – “seeing” – and a static, pictorial representation of the object observed. Or stated somewhat differently; the brain registers a static picture, as well as the fluid process (action) in conjunction with this picture. Even if the horse is galloping through a meadow, the object is still a static, mental representation or ideation – though moving through space. The process of that seeing-moment, though not always the focus of our awareness, is a dynamic function juxtaposed to, yet part of, a static representation in what one might think of as a dualistic, mental symbiosis.
      The brain, in conjunction with the visual sensory mechanism, registers and imprints the form we observe into memory while simultaneously, within a separate yet connected area of the brain, allows for awareness of that “action” we call seeing. Making this point may seem unnecessarily repetitious of me. However the salient point here is that the contingently arising connection between observing and the observation is more familiar to us perhaps as the seer and the seen.
      To see the horse and to recognize the action within which that object arises, allows us to understand the process within which the sense of “I” is born. In the absence of the brains ability to reflectively re-cognize the result of its own act of objectification, the human psychological landscape would not be as we know it today. Neither the notion, nor the experience, of what we refer to as the “self” or ego, would be part of our mental or experiential world. The human organism would merely experience sense data, and never “own” or question the origin of that experience.
      As it is however, when Bob says, “I see the horse” there is reason to suggest that the “I” references the brain which is doing the seeing. There is no seer; there is just a process of seeing (seeing and seen) which is co-registered; once as the object seen and also as the action of seeing. When the self-referential process of the human brain reflects upon the object of its own process – the appearance of an observation - the brain identifies the process as itself and the “I” is born. It is the mind recognizing its own process.

Thoughts: From Sound To Anger

      On a day not unlike today, a thought scurried out from another of those dark corners of my brain and the following ensued after an inner voice inquired, “If there were no sounds, would there still be hearing?”
      The conversation went something like this. “If there were no sounds - none whatsoever, including the sea-shell-like white noise that we notice sometimes when there seems to be total silence – could we say that hearing still exists? Is hearing an entity separate from sound?” A moment’s thought and I answered “no.” My reasoning, whether solid or at best, ephemeral, was that if the process of hearing requires a mechanism of reception – as in our case the brain/ear continuum – as well as a sound for this mechanism to process, then it seems to make sense that no hearing will arise in the absence of the necessary conditions of sound and ear. In the absence of either one of these contingencies hearing does not arise and is therefore not a separate entity.
      The same reasoning can be applied to sight. In the absence of an eye, an object, and the presence of the necessary light - seeing will not arise. After a quick perusal, it would appear that the same is true for the other senses. This is because the senses, which we fallaciously consider the arbiter of our truths, are merely contingent processes. That is, the sensations are contingent on the presence of other factors which ultimately rest in biologically determined parameters of operation. For example, there are only a limited number of wavelengths of light and sound that we are, through the operation of these mechanisms, able to register. The same holds true for every sensate experience and each of us can take the time to verify this for ourselves.
      Then, as so often happens, I made a mental leap to some conversation I had recently where I was asked about the notion of “transcendence” and what that means in terms of enlightenment as well as its relationship to overcoming Klesha’s or the defilements of mind which separate us from recognizing the Buddha Mind within.
      I then imagined a mind experiment concerning this question. I imagined a receptor of some sort that used a monitor to display a circle in the center of the screen. The background was white and inside the black circle appeared the color red in a range from a very light pink to the deepest and brightest red one can imagine. A change in the shade of red would correspond to the degree of anger the person experienced when hooked up to the apparatus. The darker shades indicating a greater degree of anger while less redness within the circle would indicate a diminished experience of anger.
      Then I imagined that a subject would move from emotional quiescence up to a state of rage, and progressively move through to a meditative state of calm over a period of several minutes while being monitored through this process by my apparatus. To tie up any loose ends I imagined my apparatus having the ability to register all levels or degrees of anger so that if it was present to any degree whatsoever, we would be able to detect it. Isn't fantasy wonderful?
      The subject was then shown a film which he said produced a "homicidal rage" when he first saw it, and upsets him still, if he thinks about it. As the experiment proceeded it became apparent when the subject became extremely angry, as evidenced by fact that the center of the circle would take on a deep red hue. Then as he calmed himself by meditating, the shade of red began to diminish slowly until the circle was the lightest shade of pink….and then melted into the white background outside the circle.
      What I gleaned from this little excursion into my imagination was that to "transcend anger" is to be, ultimately, in a state devoid of anger. After the test subject let go of the stream of after-thoughts, which initially arose out of viewing the film, he gradually became "emotionally free of anger" as evidenced by the disappearance of any shade of redness. The man himself however remained. There was no outward physical change to his body. Furthermore, it occurred to me that what would also disappear would be the usual outward consequences of anger in that person’s life. In short there would be no experiential consequence for him, nor would there be a re-birth of anger, or its lesser minions, in anyone with whom he came in contact while angry. The negative karma that arises out of anger would be avoided. He would not have to practice over many life-times in order to achieve what is possible in this one; here and now.

A Response to E's Comment

Your question:
          I want to include a more visceral, experiential approach. In the latter paragraphs, you move a lot into desire, grasping, wanting. And while that may be a cause of "self," I want to put more emphasis on "Who am I?" when the grasping falls away! Am I Buddha nature? Am I pure consciousness? Am I emptiness? Am I nothingness? Am I One?

My answer:
         Since you have brought up the ideas of Buddha nature, Pure Consciousness, Emptiness, Nothingness, and Oneness, I will defer to my blog on these issues specifically. As to this particular question I offer the following opinion.
         In the previous post, I made the following statement: this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment. Therefore, regardless of what one names it, the "I" which has shed grasping and aversion will remain as the on-going flow of experience for each individual. Personally I believe that is an adequate understanding of Buddha-dharma, and the other terms.
         Buddha means "awakened one." Awakened to what? Well, awakened to what his teachings point to.....the result of following his path. Call it enlightenment, transcendence, release, or Oneness, etc. I think it is synonymous with the emptiness that is, in each moment, filled with the process of unending contingent-arising which would be understood as nothingness if it were to be apprehended by human thought. It is the vast primordial unfolding of consciousness as well.
        What we have to remember is that all these terms are just metaphoric fingers that point to an unknowable moon. When we try to use words, which by their very function narrow our vision and focus, in order to understand the unknowable we actually move further away from correctly understanding.......an understanding that surpasses words.
         I read a paper by a young girl (Blair Felder) the other day in which she made these observations. We need to "perceive conventional reality with objective observation laced with awe." I think this speaks to the need to "know the self in order to transcend the self" as Dogen taught. This requires us to find Nirvana, enlightenment, etc. right here - that what is pointed to by these terms is here and now - not somewhere else in another time. She also wrote that if one can, "exhaust the meanings of conceptualization by being contemplative and skeptical of conceptual meaning, one can reawaken to the state of emptiness." That state of emptiness is "I" sans conceptualization, grasping, and aversion.
        I hope this leads to further exploration.

Thoughts on the Identity of Bob

      Generally, I think we can agree that the entity we refer to when we say "self" is this mind/body aggregate that we see when we look in the mirror. Other terms I might use to identify Bob's attitudes, experience, or spatial identity of this self are Bob, ego, angry, old, loquacious, yada, yada, yada.
      The human brain functions as a dualistically oriented, interpretive hub for sense data. It is also houses the operation responsible for language, and the result is the sense that this self, or this "Bob-thing," is a fixed entity which becomes reified in the mind and thus, appears to be the essence of who we are. Albeit, we might find ourselves unsure from time to time whether this is actually the way it is, but the drive to exist, to be something eternal, is a powerful human motive, and leads us back to the comforting belief that the "self" - as a core essential something - is real. It is hard to imagine, let alone argue with, some other interpretation. I'm suggesting that this is an inherent component of human consciousness and is part of human DNA.
      Stephen Batchelor has said that the teachings of the Buddha are about becoming awakened to a new way to live in this world. That they embody, not just a spiritual realization, but they direct us to recognize the "self" as nothing other than that with which we identify. Rather than a concrete, essential something, he says that we are "a project to be realized." This resonates as true for me, and I hope to express why it does so in the following excerpt from my blog entry on September 5, 2010 titled The Illusion of Me. I have made some minor tweaks to the original in hopes of making it more reader friendly. Then again, we'll see.
       .......What I want to talk about here is the fact that when I refer to a "part of me" it implies that this me to which I claim ownership, is able to shapeshift or in some other way separate into a second....what shall we say...."alternate me?" Like that entity we hear referred to as an alter-ego perhaps. Philosophically interesting - maybe; and while helpful in describing my experience, it may not be at all helpful in understanding the notions of impermanence and no-self in Buddhist teachings. Each of us must judge for ourselves in these matters.
      So now more to the point. Ego is a term that designates an "enduring and conscious element that knows experience," (Philosophical definition based on Random House Dictionary 2010). This definition, along with the term "know," leads us to imagine an enduring and conscious "self" which is refuted in the Buddhist teaching of Anatta (No-self).
      Robert Kennedy says, in his book Zen Gifts to Christians, “The self is the sum of its functions in the present moment.” When I imagine a function as an experience, it allows me to understand the essence of ego or self, not as a single entity but rather, as a verb. A verb which denotes a mental construct/process (perhaps we might read as "illusion") manifested in physical behavior and commonly referred to as an act of grasping, wanting, desiring, or evading. In this way it becomes quite easy, in light of dependent-arising, to understand ego as an action arising out of attraction or aversion which arises out of sensory contact. Think about it - the brain, working within its biologically determined functions, responds to sensory contact; from these sensation "wanting" arises, and the result is dissatisfaction or suffering. Why? Because in an ever-changing world we are unable to find lasting satisfaction, or permanently avoid being dissatisfied.
      It stands to reason then, if we stop wanting - being attached, and grasping after things - the ego or “I” will no longer arise. In the absence of wanting, this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment. The Buddha told us that life is suffering because of this grasping; our tendency to strive for more and more and never be satisfied. We find ourselves dissatisfied with life; we suffer from want. We tend toward becoming covetous of that which we don't have, neurotically attached to what we do, and in fear of losing it once obtained. Ego, desire, suffer; they are one and the same. We get off track when we think that ego is an actual entity that somehow this sufferer is assaulted by it's suffering from the outside.
      To be free from want we must disentangle the threads of "I" in the tapestry of self arising from the world of form that plays behind our eyes.
      I would like to address one more question that comes to mind; "So what?" In the piece above there this sentence - "In the absence of wanting, this thing I think of as "me" will simply be one with whatever is at the moment." Even if it happens to be true that understanding the notion of self in the manner described above, assists us in becoming free of wanting, why should we care? Why should we aspire to be free of want?
      To "want" is, by definition, to be focusing on something we do not have. If I look longingly at something, figuratively or materially, I am not in the present. I am not connected to the present moment. The more I want the object of my longing, the more I become obsessed with having it. From this obesessiveness arises a further distancing from my actual life. My mental energy becomes increasing caught up in fantasy. The more I become attached to this object of desire, the greater my dissatisfaction with "what is." In addition, the more the notion of "I" will become reinforced as a real entity that is continually assaulted by the whims of an uncertain, bewildering world. Life becomes some variation on the mantra, "It's me against the world." Suffering for the human animal is a disconnection with our true nature; a fluid, interconnected Self. (See the blog entry titled Self or Real Self, in November 2009)
      On the other hand, when I can see Bob as a "project" that unfolds from moment to moment it becomes easier to recognize that "I" am what I think. "I am" the ever-changing flow of life - existence. I change each second as part of the interconnected web of arising and passing which is life itself. There is no Bob in the usual sense. There is only the flow of sensory processes, and neither these nor anything else is permanent. There is nothing to cling to, nothing to covet. Bob is the ephemeral changing of a plethora of objects arising out of sensory contact and human ideation. Dissatisfaction is transcended in each moment of this experiential realization. As fleeting as it may be, I find it worth the time and energy to work for it.

Non-Resistance versus Affecting Change

      How does one remain non-resistant to the moment and still work for change? On our way to answering this question let’s begin by exploring what it means to be “non-resistant” to the moment. To accept the moment as it is, without resisting, is not to necessarily agree or condone the actions contained therein. By way of example, I can thoroughly disagree with the opinion or action of another but still accept the fact that they think or act as they do. However, most of us are used to having negative thoughts about another’s ideas or behavior. And these negative thoughts are what usually come between us and skillful action in attempt to not be that other.
      In one of Scott Peck’s books he wrote something that has stayed with me over the years. I paraphrase here as, “The unsavory acts of another man relieves me of the burden of being him.” Or in the Buddhist writings, those who present us with dissatisfaction are the heavenly messengers offering the catalyst for change. And in my own life I am in constant want to remember that he who has the eye of the middle way sees not the man, but the suffering.
      I am always grateful when I can remember these thoughts in the midst of an all too familiar, disparaging, internal dialogue about something I don’t agree with. I’m not suggesting that I condone things like rape, racism, and man’s inhumanity to man in any form. However, I have come to realize that my mental diatribes do nothing to right any situation. And they are likely to cause me to act in a manner that is counter-productive to desired ends.
      In order to act in a manner conducive to change, I have to be open. I have to be accepting of all facets of the negativity that I desire to change. Acceptance here is not acceptance of the negativity itself but rather acceptance that it is a necessary aspect of the present moment as it is. This requires me to have a deep understanding of Impermanence and Dependent-Arising as a fact of human existence, right here, right now. This does not mean I shouldn’t feel great sadness or pain. These are endemic in human existence…..so just accept it, feel what you feel, and decide how to proceed. No pointing fingers, no verbal or physical outbursts, no eye-for-an-eye mentality; just be empty. And in the words of Dainin Katagiri, “Then this emptiness makes your life alive in the universe and you are ready to act.”
      We spend far too much time accusing and arguing over right and wrong, good and bad. Just accept that these are categories created by man pointing to supporting extremes in the natural process of dependent-arising. The existence of either depends on the other. The pendulum of impermanence knows nothing of such categories. It just swings with the force of our reactions to these extremes. Thus we can see the middle way of action. In Taoist terminology it's Wu-Wei; the non-action that leaves nothing undone.
      In answer to our question, Katagiri gives us insight derived from our practice on the cushion when he writes, "How can you do this? Just pat your ideas on the head and pass by......just become empty and flexible."

Non-Doing

      I must say that I spend a fair amount of time being confused by my readings in Philosophy and Zen literature. However, this exercise is preferable today to training for 10K races and various other sporting events. Some may call it 'old age' but I prefer something akin to wisdom - though I admit to feeling a twinge of ill-conceived hubris at the use of the term.  However, after hours of perplexity and furrowed brow, reward often comes with a sudden flash (and a rush of adrenaline equal to the runner's high). In a moment of direct experience, clarity descends upon a previously clouded understanding. And it's always exciting when something that seems so abstruse at first, becomes obvious once it is.....is what? Digested, understood, integrated... once again the inadequacy of words becomes clear.
      One of the most perplexing statements in Zen is the one below by Lao Tzu and comes from Taoist literature:

"Less and less is done
Until non-action is achieved
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone."

How, we ask ourselves; how can anything be left undone when nothing is done? It confounds rational thought.....and that is actually the point. But let's save that for another post. The point here is that I read this over and over throughout the years and while I grasped it intellectually....sort of....it wasn't until today that I realized that I had experienced it earlier in the day.
      Various writers had used any number of examples to help me "understand" what was being said, but it wasn't until my own experience embraced its truth that it was understood at a completely different level. One that I cannot seem to adequately express in words. Michael Jordan thrilling fans with aerial acrobatics on the baskeball court, gifted pianists performing feats of digital prowess that I can barely imagine even as I watch, or the archer who is said to have hit the target without having aimed because it, the arrow, shoots itself: these are everyday examples of what is being pointed to in the teachings on Non-Doing. 
      I was never able to pass the typing course in high school because of a combination of not caring enough to practice, and a tensing under pressure which also devastated my attempts at making a foul shot under pressure. My mind could never "let go" enough to allow a natural unfolding of the fruits of rigorous practice. The ego can be a daunting adversary. Suffice it to say that over the years I have learned to type well enough to handle anything I've needed to create with a computer keyboard. Typing while simultaneously reading the words from a book however became a laborious and time consuming task. Since this has become a necessary activity today, due to sheer repetition minus the dreaded competition with clock or man, things have changed.
     As I've looked for inspiring or heuristic quotes for our sangha's Thought for the Week emails, I've inadvertently improved my typing skills. Just this afternoon I read the following statement by Ray Grigg from his book The Tao of Zen:
"When non-doing appears as inaction it is peaceful, silent, and still; when it appears as action it is thoughtless, reflexive, and intuitive....This apersonal momentum is what moves the fingers of the pianist; it seems as if no one is deliberately playing the piano, as if the player has become the instrument and the music is making itself."
      At the very moment I read that passage I realized that I had been aware of that exact experience while typing. Though sporadic, there are moments when I am looking at the page of the book and, without thinking about or imagining the keys of the computer, my fingers find the letters that I am seeing on the page. When I realize that it is happening however, the thought causes a disconnect and the smooth non-typing aspect of the moment is lost in a flurry of mental interference. It reminds me of the intermittent reception we used to get with a television using the old "rabbit-ears" antenna. You would have neither picture nor no-picture. It was a jumble of static and a cacophony of distorted visual images. Suffice it to say that in those moments there are many words "undone" compared to when I am able to simply allow my fingers to work through my eyes.
      I am amazed that whenever I can settle into this "zone." It's as though something or someone else is doing the typing. My self-reflective consciousness must dissolve however, so that when I relax into non-doing, "nothing is left undone." Meaning nothing needs to be fixed later. The following quotations take on a new clarity.

"Real calmness should be found in activity itself." - Suzuki Roshi

and

"When an archer is shooting for nothing

He has all his skill.

If he shoots for a brass buckle

He is already nervous.

If he shoots for a prize of gold

He goes blind

Or sees two targets -- He is out of his mind!

His skill has not changed. But the prize

Divides him. He cares.

He thinks more of winning

Than of shooting --

And the need to win

Drains his power." - Chuang Tzu

      For anyone interested in reading further on the connection between Zen and Taoism, I recommend Ray Grigg's book The Tao of Zen. The following excerpt is found on page 294 and adds a cogent end to this post.

"Th[e] Taoist sense of virtue shares with Zen a standing aside from self so that things are left to do themselves. Detachment from doing permits doing to arise thoughtlessly and spontaneously, without the labored self-involvement that imparts ulterior motives. Such doing, consequently, becomes something more than ordinary doing because it is allowed to happen within the flow of a larger, selfless wisdom. The highest form of doing in Taoism and Zen occurs without any interference from a deliberate or contriving self. The doing is happening but no one is doing it."

Student or Teacher

      We are, at once, both student and teacher. While showing an openness to someone with divergent views, I am the student learning about a new perspective, but to an observer I am teaching the art of listening with an open mind. I am always the teacher of what "I am being" in each moment. We get hung up on the roles of student and teacher and fail to recognize that we are always occupying a position of both these processes in everything we do. Even when I am standing in front of a group explaining some arcane teaching, humility dictates that I have a responsibility to be the student of audience reactions. Otherwise I am sure to find myself lost in a cul-de-sac of hubris.
      The simultaneity involved in this student/teacher process highlights our interconnectedness with whatever condition, or situation, in which we are involved.  Every human situation is made up of a plethora of varying causes or conditions that constitute our life in any given moment. Whether in a conversation or simply sitting on a park bench, we can never escape our responsibility as both student and teacher.
      It is in this way that we may recognize responsibility for our own karma. I am what I present to the world; and it is the condition to which others will respond. If I am feeling angry, I am that anger. My attitude, expressions, or behavior - that which I am - will teach or give birth to a response in those who come in contact with me. In this way anger or love is reborn in another, in the form appropriate to that student’s condition. Each cause (a lesson taught) is the expression of a condition (teaching) previously caused (taught and learned).
      How can I even imagine that there is a boundary between being student and teacher in human society? It is a multifarious ordeal; being human. And it is for this reason that the Buddha taught that we must be the “lamp unto ourselves” and “work out our own salvation with diligence.” It takes diligent effort to recognize the nuances of how this responsibility plays out in our individual lives and those of our unsuspecting students. But it is this for which I am responsible above all else.
        "Cause and effect, means and ends, seed and fruit, cannot be severed; for the effect already blooms in the cause, the end pre-exists in the means, the fruit in the seed." - Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)

Reality and Truth: My Journey

"Truth is the understanding of what is from moment to moment without the burden or the residue of the past moment." - Krishnamurti, Commentaries on Living
      Growing up I was always skeptical of what others offered as reality and certainly what they deemed as truth though I was unable to express my own perspective on these slippery subjects. However, over the years and after long and very interesting discussions with friends, I came to a clearer understanding of what these terms mean to me. Simply stated reality is the way it is. It refers to the state or condition of each and every moment as it arises. It is my experience of the present without - and this is an important point - without any corruption by judgment, interpretation, definition, comparison, or any of the other dualistic manifestations available to human consciousness.
      As such, everything is reality as-it-is; the way it is before we mentally dissect it into discreet parts and make categories that separate them. As you can imagine, living one's life as though this is the truth about reality requires more than a "little bit of work."
      One might ask, “So what? Why should I even stretch myself to think about such things? It all sounds like stuff for philosophers and I need concrete things to help me with my everyday living.” And this is a perfectly valid question; one that I asked many times as I put down articles and walked away from books that broached similar subjects. This post is my attempt to offer some personal truths that have emerged as tools for me to see how, contrary to my initial assumptions, these ideas, deeply explored are valuable in finding our way through the tangled skein of illusions found in everyday life. We all must find our own way of course, and for me it has been through meditation, study, and endless discussions with fellow travelers. I share it with the reader as a tease; an introduction to what I hope will be his or her own search for…..Truth, happiness, peace, contentment, or just a better way to live.
      There is an endless number of far more qualified teachers, both lay and academic, to whom the reader might ultimately want to turn for long-term leadership. My intent is simply to offer my experiences, the strength that I have found along the way, and the hope it brings each day in support of my desire to become a better human being. And for this opportunity, I am truly grateful. I owe a debt of thanks to my friend Nadine who urged me to enter the 21st. century and create this blog. 
      Meditation stands as the foundation of my journey and while for some the lofty goal might be Enlightenment, for me the aim is to simply change through love, tolerance, compassion, and equanimity with all that life offers. A wide range of Eastern thought and meditation continues to support my search for meaning and an understanding of the world both inside and outside my body. It has been and will continue to be a journey with no end, for I am a human being biologically tethered to a limited field of possibilities. Welcome to the labyrinthine corridors of my mind.
      It is the nature of human consciousness to dissect and categorize the inherent oneness of which we are part, into discrete entities so they can be processed by our senses. This process is achieved by our dualistic apprehension of sense data and as a result, we suffer. We suffer because we are continually ill-at-ease with the changing nature of our world, be it physically, emotionally, or psychologically. We are always in a struggle with the nature of an ever-changing and therefore ambiguous, tentative, and frightening universe both in and outside our bodies. However, this existential dis-ease is not really due to the nature of a changing universe - it results from our perspective or posture in relation to it.
      As I’ve said, Truth or reality is for me, the present-as-it-is before the neuro-chemical nature of our bodies deconstruct it into manageable parts - and at the same time it is also our present-moment after it has been deconstructed. I suggest that there does exist a oneness or undifferentiated whole, as well as a dualistic world which we perceive through our senses. Just as the distant planet when seen through a telescope is bright and clear yet when we search for it with the naked eye, all we find is another patch of darkness; a void....though illusory. Regardless of which “truth” we are in touch with in any moment, it is the truth nonetheless, because it is true for us, as it is, in that moment – dualistic or One.
      All thoughts and ideas are merely illusions created by our dualistic mental processes. They are illusions in the sense that there is no separate, identifiable essence inherent in them. They are merely “fingers pointing to the moon” – thoughts or ideas that represent discreet parts of one, magnificent, on-going process. A process we see represented in our world by a coming and going, birth and death.
      Each day, minute, or second, the mind creates abstractions from sensory data culled out from the one ongoing present moment. When I was able to recognize this process as a fact, verification seemed to arise everywhere. Clarity flashed onto the scene at a friend’s house in Lakewood, Ohio. I was sitting quietly reading a book, the subject matter now far from recollection, and it burst upon me like a meteor. I remember yelling to my friend in the kitchen, “Oh my God I understand it!” This was one of those ideas I just hadn’t been able to get my head around and had put it in storage. “Hey, I’ve got it,” I yelled again, “there is just this moment - Now is all there is.” My friend was less than impressed with the exhuberance or my insight. But I was ecstatic and tossed the idea around for hours, looking at it from all directions and thrilled as a child at Christmas. From that “Aha” I was renewed in my belief that answers would come if I could just be patient and continue to walk my path.
      And then years later, I was again primed for an insight. It was New Years Eve as I recall, and if I hadn’t turned on my computer I wouldn’t have realized it. I was living at a meditation center in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. I had little contact with worldly events for a number of months, save for a periodic email from friends. I was learning first hand how comforting it can be to just stay focused on the present versus the mental cacophony born of the world at large.
      In a rare excursion into Internet news, I read where President Ford had been laid to rest and it prompted thought once again about how life is but a continuous oneness. That it's the function our mind which creates, as Einstein said, the "optical illusion of separateness" and while it may seem as though there will always be time to create things, to do things, or go places, the fact is - we are in the future now.
      I realized with a new clarity that there will come a moment when I come face to face with death, when my time has really come to an end, and all options are exhausted. When this moment arrives (and this is a bit of a misnomer because it is not the moment that arrives, but rather a situation or set of circumstances that arises as the present moment), I will look back on what are recalled as previous moments, and recognize that there is not, actually, the distance between now and then that I had imagined. Every present moment, although seemingly separated from the previous one by some imaginary expression of time, actually cradles my entire life, beginning to end. There are no starting and stopping points in this present oneness. It's awe inspiring when recognized at our deepest level - I am but awareness. Or if one prefers, consciousness is at once me and, at the very same moment, that process by which this “I” is created, extracted, out of the vast ocean of is-ness.
      With the help of science, and a meditation practice, one can begin to see that boundaries are assumed to be present simply because we are unable to have a sensory experience of our actual connection to this Oneness. For instance, our ability to hear sounds or see colors is limited to a small number of wavelengths by our biology. Our bodies are biologically wired to work within specific parameters. Beyond these parameters, dictated by nature, we are unable to sense the fullness of data available. Rather than there being an end to color when we no longer see it, we have found that there are wavelengths we are just unable to process. We are unable to function at a multitude of sensory levels, and therefore have the illusion of a static boundary and so it appears there are actual, solid barriers, or boundaries between us and the rest of the world. We live our lives through this illusion of separateness. However, we do have the capacity to recognize our error (root of our suffering is after all - Ignorance) and we have the ability to transcend this limitation.
      To transcend is not to make this illusion go away, but to live in harmony with it. By recognizing my inability to process all the information available, I will not put an end to suffering in the world, and it will not make life easy by removing obstacles or painful times. But it does allow me to recognize that whatever this moment holds, it is not exactly as it is perceived. And since I can never be aware of the "whole picture" it is an indication that it is likely that “the world is unfolding as it should.” (Desiderata, Max Ehrman, 1927).
       I used to grapple with this idea, as though once attained it would shelter me from anxiety and stress; as though something would miraculously fall into place and all would be simplified. However I now see that this awareness is but a tool. A point of leverage allowing me to overturn the heavy burden of fear, disappointment, regret, and all manner of dissatisfaction that reside in my attachment to time and circumstance. It is then up to me to learn to accept life as it comes and not interpret whatever is happening, as somehow interfering with my life. This is my life - just as it is - now!.
       One day, while pondering the notion of a timeless present, an incident came to mind that frames a recurring pattern in my thinking over the years. I was forever imagining scenarios in which I was the hero. Whether I was on the football field scoring touchdowns, winning the high school state basketball championship in the final seconds, or writing the novel that would catapult me ahead of Hemmingway as an icon of American literature. And while somewhat adolescent, these desires are not far off the norm and probably quite achievable for more of us than we imagine……… if we are willing to pay the price to achieve them.
      It was after we had graduated from high school and a friend had joined the Air Force. His father was a commercial pilot and my friend loved everything about flying. We were close during those tumultuous high school years of male competition over everything from girls to who was the toughest. One spring when the annual carnival came to town he played a marching-song for our male bravado and foolishly, I allowed myself to be talked into going on a ride called The Bullet. It consisted of two bullet shaped, caged, seats that spun the riders laterally, and if that weren’t enough, these spinning bullets where attached to a long arm that fired them in a head-over-heels fashion at the same time. He loved it. I could hear him laughing and calling to me to join him in his revelry. I was petrified beyond explanation and if I had had the strength in my hands, my death grip on the bar in front of me would have been broken it in two. And years later, had he lived through the Air Force training mission in which his jet plane crashed into a ball of flames, it would have been one of the stories we repeated over and over at class reunions until others refused to listen.
      When I attended his funeral I was struck by the realization that he lived every minute of his short life with an energy and focus about which I knew nothing. And while at that time I didn’t have the ability to put it into words, forty years later I recognized that what he had and I did not, was the understanding that if you want something tomorrow you have to do more than imagine it today. Every dream or project he put his mind to, he worked for in the present, while I stood on the sidelines imagining what the game might be like. He was an active participant in his life and achieved many more dreams than I in the time he was allotted.
      Somehow I always assumed there would be time to do what I wanted to do..... in the future.  Today I am able to see just how mistaken a notion that was. Through meditative self-inquiry and stretching, reaching, for my own understanding of life, I recognize that the notion of discreet units of time is a construction of my thinking. It’s helpful and necessary in many ways, yet false beyond that window to the world within my mind. In the material world it helps to plan, create time-lines to assist in the accomplishment of goals and to mark progress. But in the realm of the spirit or in moral development it has become clear that if I want to be something tomorrow, I must be it today. For tomorrow never comes; it is always just this moment; here, now. The notion of time leads me astray. If I desire to be loving or kind in some future time and place, it is kindness and love I must embody today. And so it is with all that I wish to be.
      The one certainty, one Truth in life is change. The moments, hours, and years that we call our life is the stage upon which we, like Shakespearean actors, play out our part with the deluded certainty that our personal life and loves are special. That the suffering and betrayal we experience is somehow different than that experienced by all human beings….and this is simply not so. In the memorable words of Joseph Campbell;
        “Fill circle, from the womb of the tomb to the tomb of the womb we came; an ambiguous enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is soon to melt from us like the substance of a dream. And looking back at what promised to be our unique, unpredictable, and dangerous adventure, all we find in the end is such a series of standard metamorphoses as men and women have undergone in every quarter of the world, in all recorded centuries, and under every odd disguise of civilization.” - The Hero With a Thousand Faces.