THE WORLD, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING

"ART IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF REALITY"

I read this today - or something very similar.  For the life of me I cannot remember where - so if it was you let me know, and I'll credit you.

Walking on the beach with the dog last Sunday, after skwadging ankle deep in tarry quicksand on a deserted tide-out stretch of sand, I gave up the idea of a fantasy afternoon watching the dog bound across flat sand into a late summer surf.  Within 20 minutes we were both wet, dirty and harassed by impolite dogs that hadn't been taught proper boundaries re my dog's ownership of a dubious bit of driftwood (TBH, I think it was a fossilized piece of sea alien), I trudged up the pebbly beach, two feet up and one step back up the hundreds of thousands of rocks and pebbles.

A little flat stone with some writing on it caught my eye.
Picking it up I couldn't immediately work out what the marks on it were.

Slowly I deciphered the strokes.

"Vivs rock, 12.09.97"

My name is Viv.  

My wedding anniversary is 12.09, and in 1997 had been married for 10 years.

I shit you not.

I have no idea what interpretation to put on that other than it's a very strange coincidence.  Viv is not a particularly common name. The date I found it was 15/09/2013 and I suspect, but have no way of knowing, that a girl (or could have been a boy) called Viv who was born on 12/09/97 was sitting on the pebbles on their 16th birthday, chucking them randomly into the sea when she/he decided to claim one amongst the millions along the coast and inscribe their name and date of birth on it as a way to mark being sweet sixteen.  

Or maybe whoever they were with, someone achingly in love with them (as only 16 year olds can be) said 'One day I will give you the world.  I'll start today with this little rock - this is yours.  See, it's got your name and birth date on it.  But one day I will give you the moon and stars as well - you will be queen/king of everything - because I want you to have it all, that's how much I love you.'  

And then they tried to plant a kiss, but Viv pulled away, chucked the little rock down and shouted: 'Idiot - is that all I get for my birthday? Some stupid little stone with my name and birth date on? What a loser.'  

And by that unthinking ungratefulness Viv's adorer's world turned and the bubble that contained their romantic dreams and imagined future with Viv exploded and scattered on the pebbly beach.  

Silly Viv.  She/he could have had the universe, if they'd only returned the kiss and cherished the birth stone and held on to it - a talisman for everything they'd ever wanted; the beach, the sea, the sky, the world and everything in their sight - freely given with a love that worshipped them absolutely.  But they couldn't see.

So I found the little rock 3 days later and wondered at the strange coincidence of name and date.  And that other Viv will never have the universe because I have the little rock and now it's mine.

All of it.

DREAMING, PART 2

(Part 1 is here)

Yeah.  So.  Dreams are non-directed.  They are complete and whole AS a dream.  The character and events in a dream are not separate FROM the dream.  It's a night-film.

But there does seem to be some common aspects of dreams.  The first is that they are bizarre.  Compared to waking life, strange and far-out things happen.  So much so, that it's impossible to convey to someone else exactly what happens in a dream.  When you try to recount, I bet you find yourself saying things like "I was in my house, well it wasn't the house I live in now, it was kind of different, but the same".  And they nod and pretend to be interested but let's face it, other people's dreams are B.O.R.I.N.G.  

Another common aspect of dreams is that the rambling, tedious account we give can even hint at the reality of the actual dream.  For the simple reason that no words, however eloquent or descriptive, can convey a dream with any accuracy.  WHATSOEVER.  All people hear is 'blah, blah, house, blah, blah, flying, blah, blah, purple dragon with false eyelashes, blah, blah.'

It's not like describing a film that we've seen (which is, TBH, equally as boring), because at least we can go watch the film and see what they were talking about and then either agree or disagree.

But once the dream is over, there is no way, NO WAY, that it can ever be recalled or recreated or repeated.

Which means that it's exactly like life.  Nothing that happens in life will ever be EXACTLY repeated or recreated.  And the map is never the territory.  And we can never know another's experience of reality. Either in their dreams or in their waking living.  All we have to go on is what we experience, whether it's a dream of waking reality - though it's interesting that we take waking reality to be more real than a dream.  Whilst we're dreaming, we may take it very seriously indeed.  Two nights ago I dreamt that I missed my footing on a ladder (yes, I know - you've already stopped listening..) and I fell from a great height.  As I fell towards the ground, I thought "This is going to hurt".  Then I woke up.  And that's when I stopped taking it seriously.  And started taking the awakeness of the morning seriously.  

Which one is more real?  Which one should be taken seriously?

PASS IT ON.....

Read this book, if you please: http://www.ishmael.com/origins/story_of_b/

In my, not so humble but perfectly credible, opinion - it is brilliant.

And I'm aware that my last two posts have been to recommend the writings of others.  That's because they say what I can't and, even if I were able to, they do it so much more eloquently and clearly than I ever could.  So if I am unable to conceive and communicate the kind of vision they have, I can at least add my voice to it and pass it on.  Because every voice that gets added grows the message.

So, if you've a mind to, read it, understand what it's saying and pass it on to as many as you can.  

I think it's important - o.k?  And, yes, I fully realise that it's not important in an ultimate sense, because whether or not our species, in its present form, drives itself into extinction matters not a gnat's willy.  It matters not in a very real sense, in a species sense, in a world's sense, certainly not in a universal sense, and not even in a personal sense; not really.  Because there is nothing driving THIS.  It happens as it happens, it is what it is.  And that's not a new-age, airy-fairy pronouncement; it's a bare fact.  It is what it is, it does what it does and it happens how it happens.  

If you understand the messages of the writers that I've flagged, and feel inspired to add your voice then that too is just what's happening.  But, given the choice, and you are given a choice (even though you don't get to choose the choices you're given, natch), why not choose the vision and the message that frees you from the idea that you need to be saved, from the belief that what is happening is the only way it can happen.  

The only way change happens is by one person adding their voice and their intention and their action.  One at a time....

Do you care to add yours?  Of course, it's entirely up to you.

Missing God

Someone wrote on facebook a while ago:  "I miss God sometimes."


How poignant.


How utterly does that sum up people's yearning for meaning and hope; redemption and communion?


When it's obvious that there is only this, it's obvious that there's no God - (some might say there is only God, but not I, I shan't say that) - then there's nothing to pray to.  And if there's nothing to pray to, there's no point in praying, which means you have to face up to reality, this, just exactly as it is.  


You can hope.  You can.  But there's no guarantee, no provable method.  No fail-safe incantation.


Oh, and for the word 'God' insert any of the following: The Divine, The Universe, Love, Kharma, Spirit, Fate, Destiny, Consciousness, Being, The Secret, The Afterlife, Heaven, Hell, Gaia, Pan, Fairies, Angels, Zeuss, Thor, Satan, Santa Claus (or insert your own version out of an inexhaustible list).


You may be thinking - but I know there's kharma/god/fate/whatever, and you'll cite what appears to be proof.  For example, "I asked the universe to show me what to do and to guide me on the best path and I was offered that dream job last year."  Or you may even be able to put a positive spin on not getting the job you want, by saying "Well, I wanted the glamorous, high-paid job, but got offered the admin job for a charity, which really was God's way of showing me a much more meaningful way of earning my living."  But just as you may come up with evidence for a 'dream-giver', however it may be justified after the fact, someone else can come up with evidence that the universe/god/fate doesn't deliver what they wanted. And I think that if you ask most people, you'll be given evidence that seems to indicate that they don't get what they want more often than not!


For every person who meets their dream partner, there'll be another who's just gone through a bitter and messy divorce, for every person who's just lost 4 stone, toned up and is the shining picture of health there's another who's been diagnosed with agonizing, untreatable cancer. I'm not saying that there's an exact balance of so-called good versus so-called bad, but yeah, you get the picture, I hope.


It's an interesting story isn't it?


In other words - there are no guarantees.  


None. (oh, except death and taxes, and some people even argue against death... so that leaves taxes... damn.)


So, where does that leave us?


It leaves us with just this.  With not even a guarantee about WHAT it is.  Because just as someone will call something 'green', there will be someone else who swears blind that it's 'blue'.  We don't even agree on the labels.


And of course, THIS, includes all the labels as well. It includes ALL the stories. About God, and heaven and hell, and fairies, and Santa Claus, and manifesting, and hoping for something other than this, and ignoring this, and believing in all the stories, and seeing that if something needs to be believed and can also be unbelieved, then it can't be true. And seeing that there's no such thing as truth. And seeing that this is a story too. That everything we say is a story. Including the story that everything is a story.





Which means (but don't take my word for it) that if it's all stories, then there's no failsafe method for making it anything other than what it is - whatever it is.


What and how do you feel about that?  Is it a relief to be free of belief?  If all the stories are seen AS stories, is it liberating to accept that this is all there is? Or do you sometimes miss being able to wish on a star with a hope that your dreams might come true?


I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, if you've the inclination to share them.

I = God =/= anything

When we say "I did this", "I did that", what we are actually saying is "I am God".  We attribute life's existence to God and the functioning of our life to 'I'.  We effectively say that I control myself and my life.  I = God.  Where both "I" and "God" are non-existent. 

Neither can be proven.  There is an assumption that because this exists (whatever 'this' is) then it must have been caused or made or created by something or someone.  It is assumed that 'this' is an effect of something else.... It's extrapolating a causer of existence.  That there is this existing and it must be caused by 'something' even though that something can't be seen or proven to exist.  

And it's entirely logical, because if we take a look at anything - for instance  this screen that you're looking at now - we attribute it's existence to it being made by somebody; it was put together out of component parts by a person, who got their instructions from a design, that was put together by another person, that was created by someone else etc., etc.  Therefore, there's a deduction that anything existing does so as a result of a previous action, and the mind needs to solve the equation, the conundrum, and come up with a definitive answer that puts a stop to the never-ending cycle of cause and effect.  It sees it in linear terms, rather than as a cycle of creation and destruction.

So, there is this experience, and it's assumed that there must be a creator.  A generator; which try as we might, can't be found.  To return to the example of this computer screen, we can endlessly trace back it's existence but can never find it.  

Try it now.  Break it down into its component parts; all put together by a factory operative somewhere; take each of those parts - trace each back to its manufacture; to the plastic and the silicone and the metal; even so early on in the backward chain you can already see that there is no single cause of the result that appears to be this screen.  And so the same with this existence.  

It's precisely because there can be no trace back to one singular causative agent that the human brain, in its confusion of being unable to make the equation work,  manufactures  a cause and gives it a name, attributes, qualities and so ........ God is made in our own image. But made so that it can't be seen, known or proven.  The cause (or God)  has to be bigger, more powerful and more knowing than us.  Because, we deduce - if God created this, then that God must surely be bigger, better, more powerful and more intelligent than that which it created.  So God becomes a story of such fantastical proportions that its qualities can never be apprehended by the creation it made.  And therefore, God becomes unknowable, and if God can't be known, neither can it be proved.  Because in order to prove something it has to be evident... otherwise it's just a theory.  

I hear you say: "Ah, but you can see the evidence of God.  The entire creation is evidence of God's."  No, it isn't.  The entire creation is evidence of the entire creation.  It doesn't need a Creator.  It doesn't need God for it to exist.  Similarly it doesn't need a big bang or a potentiality.  It is evidence in itself.  It is only evidenced by it's existence.

And to get personal, the very same mechanism that creates the story of a creator is the same process that conjures this thing called 'I/Me/You/Self'.  

There is seeing, and hearing, and smelling, and thinking and tasting, and a cause is overlayed onto the experiencing: Ha! becomes part of the experiencing.  There is a surmisation that there is a causative agent that is doing the things that are experienced, and is also having the experience.  And this surmising is called 'I'.  And this 'I' is given the credit for doing it all.

But just like God, if this 'I''s existence is asked to be proven, the person can't come up with a definitive, knowable thing that can be incontravertibly proven to be the 'I'.  All sorts of theories about what "I" is, are put forward: The body, the brain, a spirit, an animating force, awareness, conscioussness, the soul.  And then at some point, when all the possibilities of what this 'I' is are exhausted - when that which is labelled "I" can't be found to be an actual thing, the person questions the very existence of an 'I' in the first place.  And sees that it does not, has never, nor will ever exist.  It sees that its own existence is not caused by an 'I'.  And on further looking it sees that the very seeing itself is not as the result of a definable, explainable, describable originator. 

Belief in God is just a belief in a bigger 'I'.  It says that as there is an 'I' then that 'I' must have been created by something and that something must be more than what I am - so it conjures up an originator.  Questioning God or questioning 'I' is the same process - it's looking for the proof of something that is only a belief.  And when the proof can't be found, it's seen that there is no origin - no begin point. Only an assumption that there is a beginning point which set off a whole chain of events that can explain the what, how and why of existence, of life.

But take the belief of an Originating Doer out of the picture and what is left?  

Well, have a look - what is left?

"If you want to make applie pie, first create the universe."  Carl Sagan.

Tell me what you want...

I was reading a blog today called: http://freshnessfactorfivethousand.blogspot.com by the inspiring and inspired singer/songwriter Jason Mraz.  The strapline for the blog is: "Fuck the Should.  Do the Want."

I think out of all the words in the English language, 'should' is the one I hate the most (apart from Inland Revenue, which is actually two, so probably doesn't count!)

'Should' is far from reality.  It says "what you need to do isn't happening, and it isn't what you want to do, but IF you do it things will be tidier. However, the only satisfaction you'll get is to tick something off on your 'to do' list." 

Eurgh - it's a smug, self-satisfied little word.

And if you listen to the conversations going on around you, and read newspapers and magazines, you'll encounter it a lot.  It's most often used in relation to other people.  As in "They SHOULD  do this" or "They SHOULD do that".  It's a real 'pointy-finger' word.  It lives in splendour in the Daily Mail.  In fact, I think that the editorial of the Daily Mail is probably based upon 'what should be happening.'  Or at least it .... should be... arf, arf.

Not only does it imply odious responsibility and life-draining burdens, it introduces the mysterious and omnipresent entity - 'They'.  Those unidentifiable experts who reign supreme in matters of the weather, child-rearing, fashion, diets, drinking habits, moral obligations... just about everything really.

But what really offends me about the word 'should', and all that it implies, is that it denies what is happening now.  It denies THIS experience.  It's a great big fat NO - and it doesn't even have the honesty to say 'Fuck Off'.  It's censorious, denying, limiting, restricting and very, very mean-minded.  It says that if you're having F.U.N. and doing what you want, then you bloody well shouldn't be!  

It's the teacher with a mouth like a cat's arse, it's the sour-faced shop assistant, it's the sign at the public swimming pool that says "No running, No jumping, No petting, NO FUCKING FUN!"

But the ridiculous thing about not doing what you want, only what you should ... is that eventually what you want will turn into what you should.  And on a very obvious level what you want IS what you should be doing, because it's what you're doing..... so it's the only thing that you could possibly BE doing.

Ooooh, it's the word at the very heart of human misery:  You should be content.  You should be good. You should try harder (that's got to be the most repeated comment on school reports).   It fences off the glorious extremes of human experience: misery, failure, anger, lasciviousness (I like THAT word), excess, rage, apathy, lust, abandonment, hysteria, hilarity, intoxication ... you get the picture. 

It engenders notions of dishonour, impropriety, disgrace - it's the creeping, red-cheeked, prickling sensation of shame.  Its purpose is to stop people from relishing the reality of the present experience, seeking something that isn't happening; the ultimate ignorance; i.e. ignoring what you really, really want.

Last word is: Do what you want, because that's what you SHOULD be doing..... wanna know why?  Because it's what you are doing!  And you can't argue with reality.  And if you do, then you bloody well shouldn't! ;-)

In the words of those camped up divas, The Spice Girls - "Yo, tell me what you want, what you really, really want!

So, "Fuck the Should, Do the Want."  What a philosophy!

Weaveworld

I was reading a blog this morning (Raptitude.com, which is worth a read, IMO) and in it  the writer said "We are always looking to transcend the human condition."

How?  How can humans transcend the human condition... because any transcendence would be a human condition!  Humans transcending being human.  There is no transcendence.  If you're human, you can only BE human.  The experience is of being human.  Human Being.  Being Human.

So, what is this 'human being'?  What is it made of?  What is its substance?

Imagine a tapestry.  A deeply woven, colourful, sumptuous, richly tactile tapestry.  This tapestry depicts the story of a person.  All its woes and triumphs, sadness and joy.  And imagine that you look at this tapestry starting at the beginning as it tells the tale of a baby being born, growing, crying, playing,... into toddlerhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood; being woven by the thread, constantly changing - the colours; bland beige, ruby red, verdant green, inky black.  Now imagine that the tapestry is alive, that it's not you moving along looking at the story it depicts, but that you stand there and the tapestry weaves itself in front of your eyes - you see the weaving as it happens.

Imagine further ... that you are the character in that tapestry, that you are being woven by the thread itself.  You're not watching the life of the character as it happens, you ARE the thread as it morphs - you are the warp and weft, the colour and the texture; what the tapestry is made of is what you are made of and you are being woven as the story that the tapestry is depicting.

The weaving of the tapestry is real; each colour and thread , as it is being woven; the intricacies, richness, texture and colour - and the story that it weaves is real whilst it's being woven, but the thread weaves on.

The three scenarios I have asked you to imagine (moving along the tapestry, having the tapestry weave in front of you and being the tapestry character as it is woven) are what I think people are trying to do when they talk about transcendence or being 'awareness' or the 'witness'.  As though you can somehow step outside the story of what you are.  If you stepped outside that story; if you transcended it, witnessed it, detached from it .... then that would be "the story of 'stepping outside, transcending, witnessing, detaching."  There's no getting out of it.

And why would you want to?  Transcendence is just another experience and it can only ever be experienced by this character that is being woven by life.  Bliss is just another experience.  Any state of transcendence or bliss or 'abiding as non-dual awareness' can only ever be experienced AS the movement that is the character, the person, the human.

Imagine how tedious it would be to be 'forever blissful'; to be stuck as a character in one colour, one hue, one tone. Isn't it the very fact that the entire richness of living is felt and experienced that makes the character and the story it lives so engrossing and deep, knowing that whatever the thread of life weaves us into, it will never keep us static.

When I was trying to hit on the metaphor I wanted for this post, I was reminded of the book 'Weaveworld' by Clive Barker, one of my favourite books and so I'll end with a quote from it, which I think sums it all up very nicely:

"Nothing ever begins.
There is no first moment; no single word or place from which this or any story springs.
The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making."
— Clive Barker (Weaveworld)

Alive and Kicking Off

Walking through town yesterday, there was an altercation outside a coffee shop.  A girl sitting with friends was shouting at another one standing (both app. 18 years old).  As I got nearer the standing female started threatening: "I'm gonna kick your fucking head in.  Come on, come round the corner and I'll smash your fucking head right in."

I wondered why she felt it neccesary to go round the corner to kick her head in; I would have thought it would have been a lot easier to just do it there and then, as the girl whose head she wished to kick in was sitting down and a prone target!

As I passed by, I looked at the face of the seated girl who was shouting back, and I could see the terror in her eyes.  Her mouth was shouting and her eyes were afraid.  And I don't blame her.  The threatening ... aherm.. 'lady', for want of a better word, was built like the proverbial brick shit-house and had it been me, I'd have been UNDER the table snivelling like a right woos.

This was a dramatic little scenario and when I walked back that way a little later, the aggressor had gone and there was just the girl still sitting with a couple of friends.

Are you disappointed?  Did you hope that I was going to carry on with an account about a bitch fight?  Sorry.

What was fascinating was watching the action play out.  The posturing and reactions of the two girls.  Attacking and retreating.  Snarling threats, but failing to carry them out.  A friend trying to pull back the aggressor and two young children looking bewildered and scared at their mum's behaviour.

And then the passers-by (myself included), watching with interest, not getting involved, but being slightly amused by this 'show' of aggression and threatened violence. 

And within this little scenario was a large gamut of human emotion: fear, aggression, amusement, horror, enjoyment, shock, disgust.  And it was all whipped up due to a perceived threat or insult by one or other, or both of those girls. A threat to their sense of self, which escalated into a need to inflict violence, to prove that that sense of self is so important that it might be worth kicking in someone's head over. And in lots of instances there isn't just a threat; the action gets carried out, and results in injury or death.  Humans will protect their sense of individual self to the death. At which point, paradoxically, that sense of self  that they are defending and protecting disappears anyway. 

It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to protect something that is only a feeling and a thought.  Amazing that someone else's perception of them is so important that they will risk annihilation, either of themselves or the other.  All because the sense of self has been riduculed or insulted. 

There's not many things more ridiculous than reacting to an insult about something that doesn't actually exist.  A bit like an actor kicking off because someone insulted his pretend character.  And I think that's why a lot of the onlookers were mildly amused.  They could see that it was just a little drama playing out with nothing real behind it.  A lot of noise and fury.

Just another pleasant afternoon in an English town shopping centre.

Suffering Soccotash

There's much made of suffering.

The Buddhists say that 'Life is Suffering'.

Whooooo.  Life is suffering.  That's some pretty he-ye-vi shit.

And they say that the cause of suffering is attachment.  Attachment to an outcome, or to a wish that things could be or should have been different; or that they be different than what they are,  for ME.

Fair enough - wanting what isn't happening, or regretting what didn't happen, seems an unhappy state of affairs.

But all too often, suffering is treated as though it's a condition or a state... something that continues.  People are said 'to suffer':   'I am Suffering'  'Suffering from',   'He/She is a slave to their suffering'.

If you look at what suffering is though - it always turns out to be a thought.

I'm not denying or denigrating people's experience of life - their pain, or circumstances - just that we seem to fixate on suffering as being some distinct condition.  There can be circumstances, physical sensations,  and then this whole other condition which is identified as suffering.  How long does suffering last, though?  And what EXACTLY is it?  What do we really mean when we say 'suffer'.  The same set of circumstances can sometimes feel like suffering, sometimes feel neutral and sometimes feel enjoyable, depending on the context.

For instance: A headache.

Scenario 1: You've just woken up and you have a headache.  You're laying there with nothing to focus on but the pain in the head.  The thought emerges "why have I got this headache, how long will it go on for, how am I going to get through the day feeling like this....." etc. etc.  The focus on how awful it is and will be.

Scenario 2: You're out with friends, having a laugh, drinking, chatting and a headache comes on.  But you're having a great time, everyone's in a good mood and the banter is great, so you barely notice that the headache is there.  It gets subsumed in the swirl of everything else that's going on.

Scenario 3:  You've been very ill with a severe infection.  High temperature, feverish, shaking, sick.  After a couple of days the infection clears and you wake up and you don't feel sick and feverish anymore, all that's left is a headache.  And you feel relief that the illness is over and that the headache is all that's left of the illness as it fades away, and in comparison that feels great.

So, it depends on the context - the only thing that really changes is the thought about it.  Furthermore, there's no control over what thought emerges;  for instance in Scenario 2, the headache occurs and the thought could just as easily say:  'oh, why me, not now, I won't be able to have such a good time'.

So suffering is entirely one thought and entirely random.   Does the thought actually make the headache anything other than a headache?  And what is the thought itself? The thought is as much an experience as the sensation of the headache.  It's all alive.  A thought that says 'this is awful' ' is just as much life as a thought that says 'this is great'.

If suffering is only one thought, where does that leave Sufferers? If someone who believes themself to be suffering is told 'it's just a thought' then this pulls the rug out from under their enjoyment.  Yes.  Enjoyment.   People do really love to suffer.  It confirms they're alive and living.  It's got juiciness and high drama and intensity.  They don't feel alive unless they're suffering.  They're just as much adrenalin junkies as extreme sports enthusiasts - it's almost like trying to live on the edge the whole time - to really feel that extreme of living.  And to have it taken away by seeing that it's just a thought.... well, there's no fun in that.

Suffering is only a thought that says 'I am suffering' and furthermore the 'I' in that suffering thought is only a thought itself!  So the whole premise of  suffering being attachment is moot - since there isn't any attachment and nothing that suffering could be attached to.  If you see that suffering is just a thought and you see that the 'I' is just a thought then there's no place for suffering.  Just the enjoyment of it.  Ha!

So.....   Life is Suffering?  How about Suffering is Life?

 

That's You, That Is

I was discussing with someone a book they had been reading about how everyone is a product of their DNA programming.  They said it had made them more understanding towards people in general because it meant that no-one could help being the way they are.  Fair comment.

They  continued that this also explained why women can't read maps.  To whit I responded (and just look how I walked right into this one.... ) "Well, I can read maps".  They replied (cue fanfare ...):

"And that just proves another point outlined in this book.  That all women are self-centred."

Touche.

Actually, I think that my assertion that I can read maps doesn't actually prove that ALL women are self-centred... just... that I think I can read maps.  But I get his point.  That we relate everything to ourselves.  We put ourselves at the centre and then appraise, judge, compare and contrast whatever is happening or being said in direct relation to how we think it impacts us personally.

What he and the author of the book (also male) was saying is that it is only women that are self-centred.  For now, I 'm going to leave aside the misogynistic claims of the author and the person with whom I was having the discussion, through gritted teeth admittedly, and assert that all humans are self-centred.  It IS the way we're wired.

And we can't help it.  We live in a culture and a society that promotes and applauds personal success.  The survival of the fittest, slimmest, sleekest, richest.  It's the way we've evolved.  The human mechanism is propagated to ensure its survival as a species and to do that it puts itself at the centre and then each one of the members of the human race puts themselves at the centre of the species.  And entirely logically too, because it is impossible to experience life from any other viewpoint but this one.  You literally cannot be an other-self centre.  You can only be this one.  You can assume what it might be like to experience life as another person, but even if they explain what their experience is, you can't know with certainty that what you think they mean is what they actually mean.

So as a practical and survivalist mechanism, it's a useful one.

But... and there's always a but..... that mechanism to survive is becoming increasingly destructive In My Opinion (see, you can't get away from it). The functioning, being necessarily selfish, seeks to exalt itself above all others - and not just in obvious ways, but in every way.  Everything that this agency of self-centredness does is referrant to itself.  Even acts of charity, it could be argued, make the giver look good, both in their and other's eyes.  In comparison to others we want to be better, kinder, cleverer, thinner, richer, ..... ad nauseum.  We want to be the best, in some way, even if it's by being the best victim!

It's like a virus that's gone awry, run amok.

I grant that there are many who see that the human species is destructive, nihilistic and aggressive in the extreme due to its need to be right at any cost.  Due, essentially, to it's utter self-centredness.

And here's the ludicrousness of it all; if you look to find this 'self-centre' it's obvious that it doesn't actually exist.  The programme/mechanism/functioning/process does, but not an actual 'thing' that can be identified and found.

So where does that leave us?  Where does that leave you and me? If what you think you are is just a functioning of DNA programming, designed to ensure the overall survival of the species by advancing each member to compete against all other members, then does seeing that it IS just a functioning mean you see through the futility and destructiveness of trying to compete as an autonomous individual self?

I think it depends... not just on DNA, but on the particular culture, upbringing, influences, parenting, schooling - in other words the entire environment within which we all live.  All those things that dynamically impact and make up each person and their characteristics and personality.

In an absolute sense, it doesn't matter.  But in terms of the whole experience as living as a species, I'd say it does.

But I can't help it, I'm made that way, apparently.

It's my life

People say that.

It's my life.  "I'm really happy with the way my life is going at the moment."  Particularly celebrities.  They like to portray this sense of control and satisfaction with how things are shaping up.

Like "my life" is something that is had.  A package.

So ... imagine you can go into the Life Store and buy a life.  I want the one with the cute dog and the kewl kids and the loving, attentive, sexy partner... oooh and add in a big house and 3 holidays a year, couple of high-end cars, a dash of charidee work. Hey - I already have that! (this manifesting stuff works huh, only took 25 years!)

Yeah, like.

If any of us 'had'  a 'life, then wouldn't we be able to dictate what happened in it?  Wouldn't you get up in the morning on the dot of 6.00, eat tofu flakes and yoghurt tea, and listen to vegetarian music.  Exercise for an hour, walk to work at a company that contributes to the well-being of the planet, interact meaningfully with your colleagues whilst giving your all in a self-deprecating but intelligent and meaningful way.  For lunch you'd all share a bowl of mung beans and sprouting shoots around the water cooler, leased from a company that donates 10% of its profits to a project that supplies wells in drought countries.  Then after an intense, but significantly contributive, day, you'll lightly jog home, meditate for an hour, before steaming some organic-delivered-by-a-local-co-0perative vegetables, drink some recycled hemp tea , before dropping off to sleep after sending some positive vibes and non-invasive and non-effort reiki to unfortunate friends.

(It's likely though, that Vivality woul'd lay in bed til 12, get up, scratch, eat a bacon sandwich, surf the internet, go to the theatre with friends, have a gourmet meal cooked by someone else, be driven home after 2 bottles of wine and some chasers, watch some crap tv, surf the internet some more and pass out at about 3.00 a.m.  Rinse, wash and repeat. But that's an entirely alternative reality!)

Neither is wrong.  Or right.

Point being... You never choose 'a' life.

For two simple reasons.

It ain't your life.

And there ain't you to choose it.

There's just life.

Cue vegetarian music......   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OipXkb6fOFc

I wanna tell you a story...

A story of seeking.

Tried a  range of things: Para-Psychology, Meditation, Buddhism, Yoga, Tai Chi, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Scientology, Power of Nowism, Advaita, Neo-Advaita, Non-duality.

An interesting ride, to be sure.  But there was always  certainty that what was being  looked for had to be absolutely simple and accessible. To everyone.  Otherwise it was exclusive, and couldn't be true.  If it was true it had to be true in all circumstances and for everyone and everything.   So I worked my way through the 'isms' one by one - rejecting them when their limitations and rules became apparent.  To whit:

The hypocrisy of namaste and bowing only to fellow Buddhists and watching the wallowing in suffering of some devotees!

The frustrations of trying to meditate; trying to watch the thoughts, still the thoughts, transcend the thoughts, be the gap between the bloody thoughts;  just to end up with cramp in the legs and again that feeling of not being able to DO IT RIGHT.

Trying to 'get' Zen koans - eh? What? Either they were obtuse or I was.

Taoism - The Tao Te Ching - that which is the Tao cannot be spoken: didn't stop the bugger going on about it interminably though, did it! And all that kidney rubbing - WTF!

Scientology - sheesh; that's some wacko, out-there, scary shit - Close-call that one....

Ole Eckhart's 'Be, Here, Now'.  All very well - until I realised that I couldn't be anything but here, now.  You can't be  last Saturday at midnight or May 5th in 2030.  So, that was a relief; I didn't have to try to be exactly where it appeared I already was!

Yoga - All those contortions and trying to get the Sun Salutation right, downward dog... crazy cat, hungry hippo (;-]) and the only benefit turned out to be the 10 minute nap at the end when the teacher said and . ... relaaaaaaaaaaax.

Tai Chi - Spending 2 years just to learn the 11 short form version and standing in tree pose for 10 minutes, hearing all the other students proclaim how amazing the energy was, rushing round their meridians.... and I just ended up with aching thighs.  More inadequacy.

I couldn't get it from any of the things I tried - Too complicated.  Too difficult.  Too many rules and regulations, conditions to be met, standards to live up to.

I'm not saying that all and any of these religions/cults/methods aren't useful for many people - but I felt like an outsider who was at the party, but didn't know how to dance.

Then one day I followed a link to a youtube vid by U.G. Krishnamurti - and he barked in his unequivocal way:  "There's no such thing as enlightment".

That was a wack in the face!  WHAT!! ......But I pulled myself together and thought "hmmm.... that's an interesting concept" and ....... off I went again.

Attendance at non-satsangs with non-dual, non-teachers  followed, and even more, that frustration of NOT BEING ABLE TO BLOODY GET IT!  Except now they were propounding that there was nothing to do because there was no-one there TO get it!  I thought they meant that nothing existed (they did and still do, some of them - and perhaps they're right).  All there is, is this,  but that doesn't include you.  And I'd look down and see this body and feel these sensations and thoughts and feel even more that they saw things in a different way to me.  (and perhaps they do.)  And slowly I thought that I got what they were saying... sometimes... Through a process of elimination it became obvious... sometimes.... that there IS only this and there can't be anything other than this, but I still couldn't get this no-me idea.  Because I was looking for my own non-existence*.  Like trying to see a ghost that you've been told doesn't exist. Crazy.

And those words! Consciousness, Awareness, Presence, Being.  A state to recognise, to 'be in'.  Perhaps there are people who DO abide in a state of blissful non-dual awareness.  But it just sets up the belief that there's something to be understood or 'got'.

To be fair, a lot of the non-duality crowd do stress that there's nothing to get which isn't already apparent.  But when they start bandying labels around, the frustrated seeker latches on and tries to make something extraordinary and other-worldly out of the total ordinariness and obviousness of life, living.  I know that they're trying to point.  But you can't point at something that isn't a thing.  It's like trying to herd cats.

The pointing, and seeking, and latching on, and being frustrated, is what's trying to be pointed to or described.  That interminable, unstoppable, morphing, unrepeatable movement.

And then one day (following a pretty brutal conversation) it was obvious that there's nothing doing this.  There never was, there is not, nor will there ever be.  What this is, what life is, isn't being done by anything.  There are no conditions or rules. And that means that nothing is excluded - the very fact that there IS  life (all this)  is  ordinary and astounding.  Obvious and unknowable.

WHAT is it?  Don't know.  HOW is it? Don't care.

I spent 15 years searching for an end to the search.

And it's a bloody relief to know that there IS nothing to find.

* when I was grammar and spellchecking this post the programme highlighted these words: "my own non-existence" as a redundant expression.  Just about sums it up!

Compassion

We say about someone:  'They're so compassionate.'  What we mean is they're kind or loving or giving or helpful or pitying, show mercy.  A definition is 'to be aware of someone's suffering'.

But real compassion is the willingness to be totally uncompromising.  To refuse to do what the other person is asking you to do unless it is pointing them in the way of reality. Just being aware of someone's suffering is pointless - it does nothing - for either party.

It's a totally stubborn refusal to support a story.  It's understanding what a story is, why it's there, how it's working and what it does for the person  - and then being willing to destroy it - constantly  loosening the threads, snipping away, until the story (whatever it is)  drops away - or sometimes just being brutal and yanking it away; giving them no opportunity to pull it back.

This applies to all sorts of scenarios - parents to children, adults to parents, teachers to pupils, managers to employees, friend to friend....  Ultimately it's about being willing to be honest. Because feeding someone a false story to either appease them or yourself is cowardice.  It's how society works generally.

Take Santa Claus - we tell little children that a big man - a stranger -  is going to come into their room and they must keep their eyes closed and pretend that he's not there.  In the next breath, we're saying don't trust anyone you don't know; if any man offers you something and you don't know him, run away - scream.  But we teach them that it's ok to let a stranger into their bedroom in the middle of the night, cos he's bringing them presents!  And we use this story to exert power over them for the rest of the year.  "If you're not good, Santa won't come" (poor love, he only comes once a year anyway!).  We lie to our children so that we can manipulate their behaviour to make things easier for ourselves.  And that's when the whole stinking story of make-believe begins: fairies, vampires, zombies, god, spirits, ghosts.  Imagine what it would be like if we didn't promote stuff that doesn't exist. And just said to kids "carry on playing  - enjoy the rain/sunshine/wind and forget about stuff that doesn't exist."  (they'd look at you strangely anyway - cos that's all they do!).

And to do that, we'd have to drop our own stories about 'stuff that's not happening' and be absolutely certain that what we're saying is unassailably true -  that the tales we tell and the things we say we believe  ARE  stories.  But OUR stories are the ultimate addiction.  In order to present truth,  it has to be demonstrated - with no shadow of a doubt.  And that means seeing your own story to begin with. And once you see that, it can only ever be a story.

And once you know something, you can't unknow it (I don't mean remembering something) I mean KNOWING.

Refusing to buy into a story and demonstrating to others what their stories are in a way that's obvious, is difficult - it flies in the face of how society is structured.  It's not popular, that's for sure! Whether  it's seen or not is out of your hands - it's not down to you and it's not down to them.  Being willing to point it out though,  is compassion.  Com-passion.   With Passion.  Total Conviction.

Reality Impact

Yesterday I knocked someone over whilst driving my car - (as opposed to using a baseball bat or a battering ram!)

Miraculously, she was fine.  Or as far as I know, she may have got home last night and died of delayed shock, but since I've had no call from the police, I'm guessing that all she's doing is rubbing arnica on some bruises.

Aside from the fact that the actual event itself was dramatic, unexpected and totally random, it led to several insights into reality from my point of view: Vivality.

So this is what happened:

Sitting in the left hand lane at a crossroads, waiting for the traffic light to turn green so that I can drive over the junction.  A car is next to me on my right, but several feet in front, waiting to turn right.  The traffic light turns amber and then green. There's the sound of a car horn, and I pull away from the lights. Then, BHAM!, out of nowhere somebody hits the right side of the car bonnet, flips right over the front of the bonnet and ricochets off the left front side landing on its back in front of my car.  Whilst the body is boogying with the bonnet, I slam on the brakes and think  'I've killed her', a feeling of physical alarm (nerves firing) a profound sense of horror and shouting 'Fuck, No!'

All this happened in the space of probably 3-4 seconds.

I pull on the hand brake and unbuckle my seat belt, and the woman starts to move and get up.  I think:  'No, don't move', and then realise that she isn't dead.  But then fear that even though she's moving doesn't mean that she isn't seriously injured or about to die.  I get out of the car and move towards her.  She looks confused and distressed and I ask her if she is o.k.  She replies ' yes' and apologises, looking straight into my eyes, and continues by saying 'It was my fault'.  I reply something along the lines of 'Don't worry, I'm so sorry, are you sure you're ok?'.  Then a couple of other people join us, one leads her on to the pavement and a man says to me 'do you want to pull your car over'.  I get in turn left, park and put on the hazard lights.  I get out again and go over to her.  A man is talking into his mobile phone, I'm not aware of what he's saying.  I ask if she's ok, again.  She says yes and a lady with her tells me that she's her next door neighbour and she'll take her into the coffee shop we're standing outside and tells me not to worry, she seems fine but she needs to get in somewhere warm.  They go into the coffee shop and not knowing what else to do, I get back into my car and just sit there.  A woman gets out of the car parked in front of me and walks up to my car door and asks if I'm o.k.  At which point I start shaking and crying - gone into reactive shock.  The woman advises me to wait until I'm calm before driving away.  She leaves and then a man approaches my car, asking 'is she alright? She just stepped out in front of me.'  I realise it's the driver of the car who had been on my right at the traffic lights and that it must have been him sounding his horn as the woman stepped out in front of him. As I drive a low, 2 seater, his car would have concealed that there was someone crossing in front of him, which is why I didn't see her.  I tell him she was fine and he leaves.  After a minute or so, I drive to my original destination.

Then starts the interesting bit (and I'll explain why the 'accident' wasn't interesting in a while, so bear with me): The thoughts start.

They come thick and fast for the next 10 minutes:

'oh my god, I can't believe that happened' 'thank fuck she was alright' 'what if she hadn't been alright' 'imagine if i'd killed her' i could go to prison, i couldn't live with having killed someone' 'it was her fault' 'i didn't do anything wrong' 'did i do anything wrong' 'did i pull away too quickly' 'should i have stayed and made sure she was alright' 'is that ambulance there been called to see her' 'how can i just carry on driving'.  And some imagining of me telling people about it, and their reaction - all in the form of thought images.

And on and on and frickin' on.

And meanwhile the driving to the destination is happening completely on automatic.

(Just to say that I did phone the police when I reached my destination and they confirmed that an ambulance had been called and had checked her out and she WAS fine.)

Then the day continues on it's way.

So .....  that's what happened in Vivality.

In REALITY, what happened is this:

Woman standing at traffic lights, legs start walking and woman crosses in front of car.  Car horn sounds, woman carries on walking.  Another car accelerates and moves forward.  Woman walks into car as it's moving forward and momentum carries the body over the bonnet of the car and onto the road ahead, whilst body in the car applies brakes of car.  Car stops.  Woman in road moves and stands up, woman in car gets out and walks towards other woman, there is talking, and walking to pavement.

That's all that actually happened.  And that's why it's not interesting.  It's just what happened.

And as part of that happening there were thoughts,  which conceptualise the actual continuous happening and chunk it into AN EVENT.

And not just an event, but an event that happened to 'me' and to 'her'.

'Me' and 'her' also a part of the continous flow - tagged by thought only.

Thoughts that added speculation, drama, causality.

Vivality speculation:  'oh my god, I've killed her'
Reality: She wasn't dead.

Vivality speculation: 'What if I'd killed her?'.
Reality: She wasn't dead.

Vivality drama: 'If' I'd killed her, I might go to prison, I couldn't live with it'.
Reality: She wasn't dead, I wasn't going to prison, I was living with it.

Vivality causality: 'It was her fault'
Reality: She no more decided to walk in front of a moving car than I decided to knock someone over.

And whilst those thoughts were part of the continuous happening they did not in any way describe the reality of that stream of action.

The action happened entirely spontaneously, in a continous flow.  There was no cause.  There was no effect.

In fact, nothing happened at all.  There was no static event - but the thoughts tagged and described it, somehow setting it down as a permanent picture, like a mini-film; complete with sound effects, commentary, dramatisation - a little soap-opera.  A complete figment of thought.

And even though the thoughts didn't describe the reality, they were (and are right at this moment) no more than an uncaused flow of continous reality.

The CONTENT of thoughts is Vivality (or Johnality or Sueality - insert appropriate name).

THAT they are is reality.