In aligning your desires, beware the shiny and seemingly attractive

04-14-2019 Motorcycle_Reflections_bw_edit.jpg

One of the key steps for seekers is to obtain a quiet mind, and, unlike the traditional method of renouncing all desire, I advocate that people be honest about what they want and pursue it. Of course, this is easier said than done. You might be reluctant to recognize what you actually want because your family or society would disapprove, because you’re afraid of rejection or failure or success, or for any number of other reasons. This is why finding out what you actually desire is an iterative process: you imagine or try something, express how you feel, and if it doesn’t feel quite right, adjust the idea. And you do this again and again. And good psychoanalytic therapy can be very useful for this too.

This whole process of refining and understanding what you want, which I call the “science of desire,” is completely different from just asking yourself what you want and accepting whatever answer comes to mind. This is the problem with questions that appear in self-help books like “What would you do if you had unlimited money?” Often the answers that come to mind when we ask ourselves such questions are totally wrong.

This is because we can be very easily deceived by what we think we want. Often shiny ideas like money or prestige sound good. “Of course I want that!” we seem to say to ourselves. “A beautiful, office, lots of money, tons of respect as an investment banker, a job where I’d be working on high-profile corporate deals that will change the world? Sign me up!”

This is all very superficial. The actual work and settings and people involved in that kind of job, for example, may be extremely different than that shiny TV-ad-idea you have of it. This is why actual experience of the job, talking to people, getting real data, is so important. The guts, the flesh of the thing, has to be understood as well as possible, and that has to be evaluated as to its emotional resonance, not the top-line surface of it.

So next time you’re evaluating something, beware of shiny summary. Look beneath the hood to what the option actually involves in all its muscle and blood, try that, experience that, and then see how you feel, and re-evaluate if necessary.

The habit of thinking of what to do next is hard to break.

04-12-2019 still center.jpg

The habit of thinking in terms of what to do next is hard to break. Your true sole job is to relax and reside in peace at all times, bar none. For no reason and nothing should exception be made. That is the true vocation of the human being. Through that all else gets done, without his or her knowledge.

Doing nothing, the sage does all, Lao Tzu says.

When trying to relax, anxious thoughts sometimes arise: “I’m staying inactive too long! When will I wake up and do things? Time’s running. Ok, enough relaxation, now I’ve really got to get up and do!” And then the further questions: “When will I do? What will I do? How will I do it?” And on and on and on.

As soon as you touch thought, the entire architecture of the maze lights up. Notice the wording here; if you touch thought. If thought occurs spontaneously, impersonally, that is fine. That is, if it happens despite your utter calm, as an involuntary spasm!

There’s no one then there to suffer the consequences. (Not, of course, that there ever really is.)

Only when utterly, insouciantly unconcerned with even the next second, let alone the next minute or hour, can real action — action whose source is the mysterious and the creative and the playful — take place.

On motiveless motivation

inverted-tree.jpg

If there is a seeing-through of the idea that we are the ones in charge of our lives, that there is indeed anyone “at home” to make decisions, and anyone “at home” to enjoy (or suffer) their consequences, the mind becomes very quiet, very silent. After all, the motivation to think arises chiefly from desire — and not just any desire, but rather desire which arises from the identification of ourselves with the imaginary entity called a person.

Actually, that’s the only thing which is normally called desire at all.

What happens in place of this if the mind is quiet? Well, it depends on who you ask. For the ‘person’ whose mind is quiet, nothing can be said to be happening at all! What happens when you’re distracted, when you’re not paying attention — in that moment, do you notice what goes on around you? No, you do not. So what is the experience of the world like when you’re not paying attention to it? The non-egoic ‘state’ is like that.

And yet from the ‘outside’ standpoint, the mind and body seem to continue to act. But what motivates them to act? And the answer is that something beyond normal identity-based desire motivates them. Something else. Something that we can call non-egoic desire if we like, but it’s really not like desire at all. It’s something else. It doesn’t do, think, or feel because it wants something. It does — why? Because — unclear. It just does. For its own inscrutable reasons.

Its motivation is motiveless.

In fact, only this motiveless motivation is ever in operation — even in ‘egoic’ motivation.

The pure intellect -- a contradiction in terms

Surrender is an action non-action. It is a refraining from action. It is a not picking up of the mind. It is a refraining, hands up, a backing away.

It cannot be defined what it is. it is not a doing. It is not a refraining from action. It is not a not picking up of the mind. These all would suggest that there is a someone or something which chooses to do something, even if that doing is a not doing. Yet there is a choice, but there is not a choice. The choice consists in knowledge, but knowledge is not a choice, not a doing.

There is a choice from one side, and that choice leads to another side, a side where there are no sides.

Sri Ramana Maharshi spoke of the idea that the ego even of knowers rose up (jnanis), but that it was blunt, broken, burned up, harmless, because the jnani’s attention was fixed so solidly on the Self or source of thoughts, of mind. Yet is the attention indeed fixed? What does it mean for attention to be fixed on the Self, which is not a something, not an object, not a dimension of attention? It might be said to be withdrawn from the objects of the mind and world, but who is so withdrawn? Would not that “it” also be an object?

It could be claimed that the Self in this case is actually the pure intellect, the subtle sattva (the reflective quality of awareness), but as Ramana Maharshi also said, such a pure intellect is effectively the pure, absolute Self, like two mirrors reflecting each other. These kinds of verbal formulations are concessions to the language of ignorance, which must conceive even the absolute in its limited, dualistic terms.

Enlightenment is itself a piece within a larger Puzzle

12-14 Owl_engraving,_Chauvet_Cave_(museum_replica).jpg
But after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
The gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows — or maybe even he does not know.
— Nasadiya Sukta in the Rig Veda

 

One lesson on which all schools of spirituality agree is that nothing on Earth is worthwhile for its own sake. All goals, however grand, are limited. They cost pain to get and if gotten are always in danger of being lost. Eventually they are lost, and then more is desired again. This is a hamster wheel and a fool's game. When this is realized, the basis of motivation must change.

Even the “magical" and the “divine” are just words, and can never serve as a true basis for long-term, sustained action in the world. The mind cannot truly conceive the meaning of these words, and so converts them into more limited, dead things.

Curiosity is the key

What, then, is the basis for enlightened action in the world? What is there to act for and why?

No thing can suffice. And enlightenment is, indeed, the recognition of the not-a-thing that is our own self. We are, of course, not even the doer. And yet this question arises...

For there remains -- in the very fullness, in the very completeness of our true Self -- a delicious, delightful, strange and colorful incompleteness.

What is the nature of this incompleteness? Where did it come from and what is its point?

The more we ask such questions, the more we realize the fact of our confusion. That confusion is not weak or harmful. On the contrary. it is the one true, durable motivation. It is the other side of the coin of enlightenment, that which accepts the necessary limitation of life and in fact feeds on it: curiosity.

It's all about The Puzzle

Life is a deep well of mystery and while enlightenment points to our true nature as total peace, it does not resolve this mystery.

We don't know the name or nature of this Mystery. Its name is its heart, its unsolved Question. We simply know that, deep within us, it calls to us.

It is a Puzzle, it is a Wonder, and whatever name we put to it never quite captures it. The name is dead as soon as it is spoken, for the reality changes instantly, constantly. We think it is here, and try to catch it, but it turns out it was over there the whole time. It moves endlessly without seeming to have moved at all. This is the game we are all playing, and when it is recognized as a game, it becomes fun.

Two paths to putting the jigsaw pieces together: wider and deeper

We cannot fully win this game. In fact, what we want is to be puzzled more and more deeply, more and more delightfully. And that requires finding answers which are themselves doorways to more intricate questions. It's like a video game with an infinite number of levels.

There are two ways of playing this game.

One is lateral: it connects various disciplines. Bring the humanities together, the sciences together, the arts together, and then connect all the insights of these different domains with each other. The entire experience of the entire human race must eventually connect and show a bigger piece of the Picture.

The other is vertical. We must each go deeper and deeper into our own specific viewpoint, our own precious and utterly unique individuality. How do we do this? We express what it is like to experience our experiences so accurately and originally that others can feel the way we feel. We at least try. All of us have exclusive access to our own story, to our own memories, and they are a fund of answers -- not just for ourselves, but for everyone. We all have the duty and pleasure of being artists.

Answers are just questions in disguise

The entire task of human knowledge and wisdom and creation is to help us piece together this strange Puzzle, this Thing which we all want to desperately know. What is that Thing? What is its meaning? This is the heart of the heart of what we don't know.

Every revelation leads us to greater clarity and greater mystery. That's the frustrating joy of the chase. There is an infinite unfolding of the unknown into the known, and that into the even more unknown.

It is to speak, and by speaking, to see, more of the infinite facets of the Question that is the real task. We are pushing against the limits...deeper and deeper, subtler and subtler.

The truth is stranger than we can possibly imagine. That strangeness is God; that strangeness is our true Self. We are it and we wish to see it. We are unlimited, and so unlimited that we are capable of limitation. And within the folds of these paradoxes there lies nestled the Question.

The Problems with The Power of Now

The Problems with The Power of Now

Eckhart Tolle is one of the leading people converting the exciting findings of nonduality into boring, syrupy, non-intellectual crap. True, he says many things that are correct and, for some people, no doubt useful. Yes, his overall message is probably fine, like some processed cereal is fine.

But overall, his blandness, his confusion of categories, his poor thinking and lazy analysis of important texts... it's all so boring. Like a copy of a copy of a copy, it is tired, mixed-up, and cliched. 

I'm practically put to sleep by The Power of Now, the book that, Oprah-assisted, catapulted him to Deepak-Chopra (I have problems with Deepak, too, which I'll get to another day) levels of stardom. 

What are its problems? Many, but I'll limit my findings to a key few.

Four mistakes people make when engaged in self-inquiry

11-26 four mistakes about self-inquiry.jpg

 

Self-inquiry, the spiritual technique that the Hindu sage Sri Ramana Maharshi recommended, is the royal road to seeing through the illusion of self. I explain it briefly in this video and more extensively in my book. It involves trying to locate where the feeling "I am" is coming from.

It's a very simple exercise, but it is easy to make mistakes. Here are four common pitfalls and how to avoid them.

Mistake #1: Making it an intellectual exercise

You are experiencing the sense that "I am" (as in "I am reading these words") right now. That sense, that feeling, is what you are trying to examine.

This is not an intellectual exercise. It is not about thinking about what science and philosophy are telling us the "I" is or isn't. It is not about whether "I" have free will, or the kind of "I" that we think of when we say try to think of ourselves as being part of a larger community or society. These are all fine ways of thinking, but they are not the self-inquiry game.

Self-inquiry involves examining our experience, our feeling of the I, and trying to find out just what it is. What exactly is it?

For example, we might find that feel something irritating, and identify it as a) a physical pain because we have something in our shoe, b) an emotion because we are angry at someone, c) a memory of something unpleasant, etc.

In the same way, we ask what is this sense of I? To answer the question, we have to hold that feeling with great concentration. And then as soon as we think we've held it, we then apply a rule: whatever we experience can't be the I, because "I experience it." So what is the I? We keep looking.

Mistake #2: Only doing self-inquiry at set times

Self-inquiry can at first be practiced in a formal way, while sitting for some period of time. But this is just the beginning.

Self-inquiry should eventually be done at all waking moments, while talking, cooking, cleaning, working, and doing any other of life's daily activities.

"But how will I do my work?"

It's a mistake to believe that self-inquiry interferes with work. There is a bit of practice required at the beginning, but basically self-inquiry does not interfere with doing. You are not the true doer, and self-inquiry is helping you see that.

To get to enlightenment, self-inquiry must be engaged in with great intensity at all times.

Mistake #3: Not paying attention to distractions and resistances

When you get distracted or feel like doing something else, your mind and heart are trying to tell you something. These messages are not to be ignored.

If you do, they will keep interfering with your practice, and will stop you from progressing.

Interpret the messages by expressing what they feel like (I call this process "metaphorization") and attempting, through imagination and action, to figure out what they mean.

Mistake #4: Expecting to find the I

First, this process is not going to be instantaneous. It is going to be frustrating. It is going to be confusing. It would be perfectly normal not even to quite understand what you are doing or what you are trying for at times. Keep going. 

More importantly, you cannot find the I. That is the point of the exercise. That feeling is the illusion we are trying to see through. As long as the feeling of the I remains, you must pursue it, but the end of that pursuit will be to have it suddenly and strangely disappear! It's what I call the "spacious mind" in my book. Ramana Maharshi calls it the "I-I." You will know it when it happens. 

That's the shift we're aiming for. It will disappear -- and then seem to reappear. As many times as it reappears, you must re-examine that feeling. Eventually the disappearance will sink in, and it will become apparent that it had never appeared in the first place. That's the delightful, hilarious contradiction.