DO YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT OR HAPPY?

Why do people hang on to their stories?  Stories of the past. Stories that make them miserable and unhappy and limited. Because to question those stories is to ask and face the reality of: “Who am I, what am I, without the story?"

Despite the pain and suffering that these stories create, most people cling to them.  They re-tell and re-tell ,over and over - to themselves and to anyone who'll listen.  Why? They don't go around repeating everything. It's not as if they have to keep on reminding themselves of their gender.  I don't have to keep reminding myself I'm female - I just am.  It's clearly evident.  

So why do people keep repeating their stories?

The lady doth protest too much, methinks... 

You see, that's why - they keep repeating the stories because they're not true.

But why would anyone hang on to a story that isn't true?

It's not just a story.  It's a belief.  And a belief is TRUE. That's what we're taught to believe - that a belief is true!  But that's not even necessarily true.  A belief, by dint of the fact that it is something accepted without evidence, means that it isn't necessarily true.  It might be.  Yes, it might be true. 

How do you find out if something is true?  You test it.  You have a look, run some experiments, look at the evidence.

If someone has 2 things in one hand and 2 things in another and they put them on a table and tell you that there are 5 things, you have a look, count them up and it's quite apparent that there are not 5 things.  There are 4 things.  So you look askance at them, tell them they're wrong, and may not be so inclined to believe everything they say in future.  

Unless.... Unless you want them to like you.  Unless you depend on them for your well-being and happiness and sense of security.   Then you might see that there's 4 things and express some doubt.  But if they keep insisting that there's 5, over time, because your very existence depends upon agreeing with them, you'll start to agree with them too.Then you'll start to believe yourself that there are 5 things.  You have to.  Logic, reason and reality tells you that there's 4 things, but you can't admit the truth of that because you risk being rejected, reviled, mocked, ignored, disciplined, or any other manner of unpleasant consequences of not falling into line with people who hold the power of your well-being in their hands.  

So in order to reconcile the reality of 4 things with the possible consequence of rejection and demise if you don't agree to the lie of 5 things, you can't continue with the cognitive dissonance.  You have to believe it, i.e. take as true something that is not proven to be so.

And this trick is what happens when we believe stories about who or what we are.  As youngsters we are told who and what we are.  And we believe the stories.  And then they're not stories any more, they are TRUE BELIEFS.  Everyone else tells us that they're true, even though we might doubt them at first, and then because everyone else tells us they're true and we need to agree with them, we believe they're true.  And then the story is locked in.  But because they're not really true, we have to keep repeating them, over and over - asserting their legitimacy - always having to try and convince ourselves and others that they're right.  Because to admit that they're not right means admitting that what we were told by the people responsible for safeguarding and protecting us was wrong.  Either they lied or they just were not able to tell what was true themselves.   And where does this leave us?  

Well, as a youngster this leaves us in a potentially difficult position (although we all know young people who do speak up and point out untruths - either because the level of care they get is so minimal as to be not worth losing, or because they may be fortunate enough to be raised and surrounded by people who don't lie and insist that they believe the lies as well - but I think they're pretty few and far between.)  

But as an adult - where does this leave us? It leaves us in a position of being able to discriminate, of being able to think independently, and of being able to test and find out what is real, what is true.  

And some do.  And some don't.  Very many don't.  And that's why so very many people are lonely, unhappy, miserable and feel trapped.  Because they believe a lie.  And it's a lie (or lies) that they've been asserting, and had corroborated by others, for so long that it never even occurs to them that it may not be true.  It never occurs to them that they feel lonely, miserable and trapped because they're believing a lie about who and what they are.  They think that they feel this way because the lie IS true.

Do you see the distinction?

Let's take one belief - the one I mentioned at the beginning of this post: It's a common one - you hear people say it a lot, in different forms - and the core belief is "I'm useless".

Someone who believes this thinks that being useless is the reason why they're lonely, miserable and trapped.  That their uselessness is the cause of the feelings, the unhappy situation they're in.  They never entertain the possibility that the unhappiness is due to believing something that is false.  

And why would they?  They're right.  Because added to the erroneous belief they have about being useless is the further erroneous belief that 'I am right'.  You can't go around admitting you're wrong - because then, where would that leave you?  It would leave you in a place of not-knowing, of uncertainty, of groundlessness and if there's one thing that people dislike intensely it's not knowing.  Among other things, it's what makes us human - we need to make sense of the world, of ourselves, of life, the universe and everything.  To not know puts us in a fearful place where anything could happen and if we don't know what it is, we might not know how to deal with it.  So we have find out what everything is, how it works, why it works.  And the easiest way to do that (indeed the way we're instructed to do it) is to accept what we're told; especially if those that tell us insist that they're right.  Then, in order to go along with what they've told us, we also must believe that we're right.  And then that means that we've got it all worked out. 

Even if it's wrong.  

But lies can be unearthed and revealed to be untrue.  There are people that refuse to collude and agree that black is white, that the earth is flat and that they're useless.  The reasons why they refuse is a whole other sociological conversation.  But thank goodness that they do.  

And thank goodness that, in fact, anyone can.  Anyone can start to question the beliefs that they've always been asserting are true and right, but which cause them so much unhappiness.

So, let's start with one - let's keep running with the belief "I Am Useless".  There it is in black and white, capital letters and quote marks.  It's true.  It's true because it's told and heard so often by youngsters.  Not always in those words.  But the fundamental label is Useless.  And it gets repeated by parents, by friends, by family, by teachers, by governments, by advertising - in fact, by many, many people.  It comes in the form of "Let me do that for you (because you can't do it properly)", "Buy this product, it'll make you better", "We need to tell you what to do, because otherwise you won't know how to live", "Worship this God or you'll go to hell because you're bad." "Do as I tell you, because I'm older/wiser/better than you."  And on and on and on.  

We may, for a while, and at times, question whether or not they're right, and if we're very lucky we may see through some of the lies and see the whole house of cards for what it is.  But, more usually, our doubts get covered over by the constant assertion, in one form or another, that we're useless.  And, let's be logical, they can't ALL be wrong, can they?  I mean, they're right aren't they?  About so many things - fire burns, water's wet, ice is cold.  You see, they know.  They know what's what.  So they must be right when they say I'm useless.  And because I want to be right too, I have to agree and believe that I am useless.  Because being Right is just and noble and worthy.  I may be useless but at least I'm Right about being useless!

What if, however, you allow yourself the possibility that you're not right - and this is where the difficult bit comes in, because admitting you're not right is tied up with perceptions of being good and noble and just, but more importantly, because that means that they may not be right either - and if they're not right about this, then what else might they not be right about?   

So, if that feels uncomfortable why not look at it much more rationally? Forget about being right.  Rather, find out if it's correct.  I think that's a much more effective question to ask. 

Is it correct that I'm useless?  Treat it as a theory rather than a truth; because then you can start to find out the reality, by looking at the evidence.  

In order to do that you have to look for instances that disprove the theory.  Find out where you're not useless.  Look at the facts.  You're alive.  You have abilities.  Find one thing that you know you're good at.  Then find something else.  Keep going.    You may not be world-class at these things, you may not be lauded and applauded for them - but you're not useless.

So what? you might say.

Well, here's what.  Yes, it may be that you're not the best in the world at all these things, or anything, but you'll never get to be the best, or even the best you can be, if you carry on with the belief/lie/story - I Am Useless.  Because it's a very handy lie to have.  It's the one that keeps people particularly unhappy, miserable, depressed and trapped.  

And it does it like this:

If I go on believing "I’m useless", then it gives a watertight excuse, it absolves of responsibility.  It stops me asserting myself, it allows me to avoid confrontation, to indulge in habits which are destructive, either financially or health-wise.  Because if I’m useless and I’m right to believe that I’m useless, it then paints the story of my entire behaviour - an entire life.  

I can even pretend to be useful, whilst underlying that pretense is the default belief ‘I am useless’.  So then I can make forays into being useful, but never have to follow through.  I don’t have to succeed, I don’t have to be brave and honest and fearless and bold and authentic.  Because I’m useless.  I can look like I'm doing those things, but I don't really have to.  It allows me to be a hypocrite.

Being useless is the ultimate ‘victim’ garb.  It extends to all areas of life.  It works for everything.  Relationships,  career, hobbies, interests, community, being happy.  Because you can say ‘well, it’s not my fault.  I’m useless.’  It means that you never have to succeed.  You never have to take it all the way.  You can start things all the time, but you don't have to carry on. You can get passionate and enthusiastic about interests/projects/initiatives etc., but after a while they can fizzle out.  Because if you believe "I’m useless", then that belief permeates whatever you do. If you believe you’re useless you’ve a get-out clause.  For everything. 

But it turns out to be your get-out clause from living happily.

Because, the trouble with “I’m useless” as a default assumption/belief is that it operates in areas where you are talented/able and then you can’t see the wood for the trees. You can’t truthfully evaluate the areas where you are effective, talented and useful.  So it disables you in all sorts of areas and you end up giving up on everything because you transmute the belief “I am useless” onto everything that you do/say/think/feel.

It disables in other ways too.  It gives an excuse to abdicate responsibility.  It gives a seemingly plausible excuse to not stand up for what's important, it means that you don’t have to put yourself on the line, not fully. It gives an excuse to not commit.  To sort of dabble around the edges. It produces laziness:  “Oh, I’m useless, so what’s the point of doing anything.”  You can even be successful at them for a while, but ultimately you can opt-out.  

How then, to see through the story, the lie, the belief?  To re-write the story so that it says “I’m not useless, I’m doing the best I can.”  Or  “I’m not useless, I just don’t enjoy doing this.” Or “I’m not useless, I just don’t think it’s a worthwhile endeavour.”  Or “I’m not useless, it’s just that someone else is better at this and it's more useful to let them do it."

But not just re-write the story - you have to see that it IS just a story - and that it's not even a true story.

And then, when you see that you aren't right, that you're not useless, you discover instead that you’re able.  That you can do the things you want.  You may not enjoy the consequences, but you CAN do whatever you want - or at least try them out.  

Without the belief ‘I am useless’ you have removed all the excuses for not being able to live how you want. To do things.  And yes, you might be useless at doing some of those things.  But YOU are not useless.  And if you find out that you're no good at one thing, because you're not useless, per se, you can carry on and try something else and find out that you're actually very good at it.  

And because you're not useless you don't have to limit yourself to one thing, you can keep going - being useless at some things, mediocre at others, and stunningly good at others.  Imagine what you could do if you stopped believing you were right, stopped believing that you are useless.  

So start by asking: "Am I correct in thinking that I'm right?  That's your first question.   And then find out whether the things you always thought you were right about are correct or not.  

Then you've destroyed two lies: I am right and I am useless. 

From then on in, you can start to question everything.  Then every time that lie pops up, either in the form of self-talk or out of the mouths of others, you can shake your head and say - "No, that's not correct.  You aren't right.  I wasn't right. I'm not useless."

See where that takes you.... do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?

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)

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!