One Path to Awakening

We have a million different religions, each teaching a different path to God or the absolute truth ("awakening"). Yet, if there is only one absolute, how can there be a million different paths to it?

"There are many paths, all leading to one destination."


Ha! Sounds like something an ego would say!

Sure, according to your ego, that makes sense. The ego-self perceives a million relative truths and therefore, feels compelled to convince itself that they all lead to absolute truth. In this way, the ego gets to compromise with the "reality" it perceives by making truth conform to relative sense impressions, rather than sense impressions conforming to truth.

Therefore, it fails to know absolute truth but runs haphazardly back and forth between different paths, each leading to relative approximations of "truth."

hmmm....I have a path in the woods behind my house that leads only to town and nowhere else. Now that's an absolute path! However, there are several other paths too, but they don't lead to town. They all lead somewhere else.

There is only one path to absolute truth and no other path will take you there.

However, there are a million paths that can lead us to ourselves and religious-spiritual paths have the potential to bring us together, as opposed to tear us apart through their relative beliefs of an absolute.

If they'd only do what they're supposed to do, rather than seek what they're not set up to find.

We may need to get our priorities in order.

God second, People first.

This is the only path to "awakening"! (but I'll bet your ego has problems with that, huh?)

The long and winding road
That leads to your door
Will never disappear
I've seen that road before
It always leads me here
Lead me to your door.
(Beatles)

Peace Angels,
mikeS

Scripted Engagments

In every relationship there is the desire for an openness through which to be revealed. You live unrevealed and desire to open yourself to others because you wish for “you” to be known (this is precisely how you know your 'self'). Yet, this desire tends to compete with the desire to avoid the risk of being 'known.' The psychological self lives in a fragile state of vigilance against harm and this impedes full disclosure.

Most of your actions are tightly scripted and most scripted interactions tend to protect against disclosing your 'self.' If you stick to the script, what could be revealed; how could you be “surprised’ by what you expect?

Sometimes even your most “loving” relationships can become your most scripted interactions. Over time, scripts replace openness and we become mutually oppressed by one another in the stagnancy of trained responses.

There is no longer the desire to learn of one another, to seek intimacy or any depth of mutual understanding. Every response is predicted and prepared for and becomes our expected role. Our desire for openness is replaced by vigilance against the discomfort of fear.

There is no intimacy in expectation. When your scripted response is expected, you will react as usual to my reaction as I react as usual to yours and you to me, on and on in the circularity of expectation.
There is comfort in the safety of expectation. Relationships scripted by expectation are finite games in which players compete for the prize of control and power. Control stifles openness and is the antithesis of openness and intimacy. Control promotes competition and competing opponents do not reveal themselves for fear of losing the game.

Possibly, God is waiting to be revealed in the depths of intimacy and maybe that's your "true self." If this is true, then is it any wonder why God seems to remain a secret to so many? It seems so few are fearless enough to risk it. But if God is this “unified oneness” we hear talked of so frequently, why then would we expect to seek it alone?

Make no mistake, the truly engaged love the world because they were brought to that truth through another.

Anyone will do.

“If you do not see God in the next person you see, you need look no further.” - Gandhi

(many thanks to Jarett for the Gandhi quote)

The Drive-To-Question is Your "True Nature"

Some time ago I posted a question in one of those spiritual forums I belong to, but rarely comment in. As I recall it was a thread regarding our “true nature.” The thread was rather long and most of the participants seemed to have come to a consensus as to what our “true nature” really is (scary, huh?).

I don't recall exactly what my question was, but it was along the lines of “maybe our 'true nature' includes not denying what we have determined as false” or some such blah, blah, blah, like that.

Well, dang, it was like I took a crap in the rose garden, because I was literally blasted by all participants for my somewhat judgmental question and the consensus then became, “how dare you judge!”

So what’s up with this non-judgmental expectation that I’m constantly slapped with? Whenever I get “judge not lest ye be judged,” I suspect I’m dealing with a spiritual ideology that merely serves to mask the uncomfortable parts of reality under some protective blanket of denial (or else I’m talking to Christ himself!). Why do so many seek some psycho-spiritual exit door, when in fact it’s denial that need be exited.

Yet, the anger I’m then confronted with, often leads me to believe that for many, “spirituality” is merely an attempt to dissociate from a deep-seated rage. Certainly, the world can suck royally sometimes and there’s a lot to be angry about. So go ahead and get angry at it! Just don’t make spurious ‘spiritualized’ attempts to dissociate from the contents of your mind and then call others out on judgments that you find more comfortable to hide from than face.

Don’t judge? Ha!

So how the dickens did you determine what “path” to follow if you didn’t judge? And that path always changes and it will change in correlation to the judgments you make based on the questions you ask of the world. Not a moment goes by when you’re not questioning.

You may never get the answers you seek, but you can be certain you'll always have questions.

So become a ‘questioner extraordinaire.’ Question everything the "master" tells you, whether he/she is dead or alive.

It’s the drive-to-question everything that will lead to your “awakening,” not simply accepting whatever answers the past provides. But more importantly, it’s the questioning that makes you an active participant engaged in life rather than a lousy practitioner of denial sucking at the teat of antique "wisdom" quotes that are nothing more than somebody elses interpretation of "truth."

I mean, come on, how long can you really deny parts of your experience and continue to seek this unified wholeness you call "enlightenment"? Ha!

Of course, many may not like you when you question their sanctified belief systems (but many didn't like Christ or Buddha either). But, my friends that’s your “true nature” so why go against it. The drive-to-question is the brick and mortar of the ‘self.’ You built “you” and that construction never ends!

This is why I tend to feel this blog may eventually go the way of the Dodo. Because, let’s face facts, people don’t want to build on questions.

No, what they want are comfortable answers or egoic lullabies sung by other "exalted" egos.

Egos love comfort and maybe the best way to diminish that tendency is to question everything it tells you.

So go ahead, I invite you. Judge me!!
mikeS

Where's the Confounded "Kingdom"?

The other day I got a bit annoyed, since, while I was off seeking the “kingdom within,” my wife demanded I remove a spider from the bathroom. I mean, how can one possibly “seek the kingdom within,” when you got all this external crap to take care of.

Or maybe I got it all wrong.



Go ahead and Google “seek the kingdom within” and you will get literally hundreds, if not thousands, of sites that employ this specialized phrase and many authoritatively inform that once you get to this kingdom you’ll be sure to meet the Big Kahuna himself, God.

So what do they mean by “seek the kingdom within,” Since the spiritualists keep pumping this “within” thing as if it were a given.

Yet, my feeling is that this phrase, probably more than all others, is what can lead some folks on a useless life-long journey of egoic self-absorption that afflicts all spiritual/religious persuasions.

So:

When you go in search of the “kingdom within” should you then ignore the ‘outside’? Does the outside disappear? Does everything become inside-out or outside-in? If the kingdom is within and that’s “where” you need seek it, then where are “you” now? Are “you” inside, thinking you’re outside or really just outside 24/7? Does that mean that if you’re outside the “kingdom” then you’re outside your ‘self’ seeking to go inside your self (mind)? But if you’re not outside your ‘self’ seeking inside, who is it that will then be ‘inside’ when “you” get there? And if you’re outside the “kingdom” then does that negate the existence of an inside until you find it? Or can you be both inside and outside at the same time?

Damn!

Does seeking the "kingdom within" mean you should close your eyes in meditation so that you're not distracted by what you see outside when your eyes are open? But then, wouldn’t that mean that you have to shutdown all your senses? And what if you’re inside and suddenly touch your body (not that kind of touching!) would that immediately take you back outside? I guess you have to keep perfectly still when going inside.

Is the "kingdom within" actually inside your head, or in your brain, or is it in your thoughts? Is it in your “consciousness,” but only when you’re not conscious of an outside world? Maybe it’s inside your consciousness, but only when your consciousness is without thought (because thought is always representative of an ‘outside’). But where does your body come into that equation? Is your ‘self’ then inside, while your body’s outside?

Or are “you” the kingdom?

Yet, if your the “kingdom within” you must be outside, since how can you be inside without me? Unless somehow you take me with you.

Ha! Fat chance I’m comin’ to your “kingdom within”! I got my own to get to!

Or maybe the kingdom is a place were we all reside, since how can there be a “kingdom” of one. Yet, maybe getting ‘there’ is contingent on getting there together, in fact, maybe that’s the only way ‘there’?!

Maybe the kingdom is waiting for its subjects and if we keep going off and trying to find it by our ‘self’ we’re never gonna get there, since it needs everybody to make up a “kingdom.”

Dang! how could the “masters’ have bungled that one?! Since it seems pretty simple to me now. Of course, there are those “great masters” who spent many years in a monastery or cave only to come outside with what they found inside, which was found only by shutting themselves off from the outside and staying inside for long periods of time. Can’t argue with that, right?

Whew! So where the hell is that confounded “kingdom”!? Maybe it's all more spiritualized bullsheit?

Peace People!
mikeS

Your "Source" is No Longer Sustainable

At times, the belief system culminating in your 'self' finds itself grossly despicable and guilty of all sorts of crud. Yet, the 'self' does construct concepts of love, compassion, peace and joy and experiences this as well.

Nevertheless, it's those damn nasty self-constructs, resulting in all manner of nasty experiences, that the self seems unable to extract itself from.

Maybe the problem is its construct of "Source."

The self determines that, in order to free itself from its own nastiness, it will construct a nastiness-free concept of perfection and make that construct its "Source," which it will then adhere to and worship as its ultimate, and only, authority.

"Source" comes under many "sacred" names (which must be capitalized) such as, God, Universal Consciousness, Brahman, Tao, Krishna, Divine Mind, Creator, Yahweh, Great Self, Lord, Pure Consciousness, Pure Awareness, Christ, Allah, Buddha Mind, Oneness, Being, Great Nirvana, Truth, The Unspeakable, Purified Mind, Prime Mover, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Now 'self' can seek to extract itself from it 'self' simply by exemplifying all the concepts and beliefs it attributes to "Source."

Yet, it is important to note that 'self' constructed the concept of "Source" in the first place.

The problem is that this division or split tends to naturally reinforce its opposite in an unending circularity. Instead of becoming like its concept of "Source," self merely becomes more rigidly stuck in it 'self.' This is because 'self' must deny that it constructed its concept of "Source," for "Source" to be legitimate.

This fact alone continually reinforces its concept of itself as weak and powerless and this merely repeats the past incessantly. A weak and powerless 'self' must always rely on something more powerful than itself to save it 'self.'

Yet, the 'self' is its "Source" and realizing this fact alone could radically change everything. But this fact must be avoided at all cost, since responsibility and accountability would fall squarely on it 'self.'

This MUST not be!

In fact, the self will actually die, and even kill, to protect its concept of "Source" and will "crucify" and "persecute" any who deviate from that construct.

So, as can be plainly seen, centuries of "man's inhumanity to man" is directly related to this concept of "Source."

Possibly our "salvation" is entirely contingent on extracting our 'self' from our concept of "Source" and making 'self' the "Source," collectively.

However, it does appear that our usual notions of "Source" are no longer sustainable.

The Scripted Play of Finite Games

Seriousness is always related to roles or abstractions. Seriousness always has to do with an established script, an ordering of affairs completed somewhere outside the range of our influence. We are playful when we engage others at the level of choice, when there is no telling where our relationship with them will come out - when in fact no one has an outcome to be imposed on the relationship, apart from the decision to continue it. (Carse, Finite and Infinite Games, p. 19)


The infinite player tends to relate with a dash of serious abandon. The finite player relates with serious purpose and to require a purpose is to be a serious player. Purpose often demands actions be performed, rather than spontaneously unfolded. In fact, for the finite player, spontaneity is seriously avoided.

Unscripted interactions may generate anxiety (fear), since responses cannot be predicted and thus prepared for and most of our relationships are dances choreographed well ahead of time.

Finite players stick to the script, not necessarily because they don't trust others, but because they don't trust themselves.

It is not so much you're breaking from the script that unnerves the finite player, but more about how the finite player can return to the script following your break. Finite players do not like surprise and thus, rely on outcomes to determine the rules of play. Finite players require outcomes be clear and, as such, seek out finite games in which a players role is clearly defined so that an outcome may be determined in advance and prepared for.

Infinite players, on the other hand, can follow the script and often do so, but not seriously. They do not fear impromptu performing and can leave the script only to return and leave again. They are not bound to the script and so, although they can follow scripted play, are delighted by breaks from the script. In that way, they do not take the script seriously.

Infinite players love roles that are not clear and determined, thereby, allowing for "surprise."

Forgive Me Lord, the Ego Made Me Do It!

It is utterly fascinating the seemingly infinite ways the ego-self seeks to diminish itself, thereby conversely strengthening its experience of itself as “existing.” And that experience must be purified in order to be made more real.

The ego-self sees itself as a nasty, bad thing and it thrives through an inherent disgust with itself and the things it thinks and does and it projects that disgust on other egos that it perceives must in fact be like it.

Certainly, it can think and do many wonderful and magnanimous things too. Yet, how to jive that with its nastiness is a crucial ego task.

Therefore, to escape this inherent and chronic dissatisfaction with itself, it attempts to cut itself off from itself. Thus, we have the self and then some abstract, conceptualized, non-conceptual, non-self version of itself, that it must then struggle and sacrifice the whole of its apparent existence in order to “realize.”

Now it can continue to adhere to the world's paradigm of “learning” by teaching itself NOT to be itself, but rather, some lofty, wondrous, spiritual non-self self, that is not a self at all.

But from whence does this conceptual, non-conceptual, fantasy-self come? Why its concept of “God,” of course, or Divine Mind, Universal Consciousness, etc, etc. They all essentially mean the same thing, self perfectly purified of itself in a freedom from self. Ha!

The self despises itself for the nasty things it thinks and does, which it often must do simply because it's a 'self.' Therefore, it makes compromises with itself by adopting belief in a “spiritual” non-self that will free it from its self-hatred and help “transcend” itself.

Now self can essentially continue to blame itself for all its errors, but luckily, it's not responsible for any higher good or even moments of unusual experiences of profound peace and tranquility. That requires the self invent an abstract concept it calls “Spirit” (or “Being”) which must be “realized” fully to become fully experienced (“Awakening”).

Now, whenever ego-self performs profoundly spiritual acts, or achieves higher states of consciousness, self can interpret that as Spirit and not self at all, thereby seeking to negate the inherently bad ego-self (notice that not-ego concepts must be capitalized to insure sacredness).

Yet, since it may take a very long time to purify self of itself, and self recognizes that many die before purification (can't be proved, only believed) the ego-self accounts for this by inventing the concept of “reincarnation.” Now self can continue many “cycles of birth and death” until the reward or outcome is fully “realized,” like its concept of “God” is fully realized, even though it's only just a concept.

Hahaa!

This game is so funny that, if it wasn't for all the suffering that originates from it, we could all die laughing.

But then maybe to die laughing is what must happen!
MikeS

The Great Book!

I have an friend who knows the Book inside and out.

Whenever we get to talking about spiritual stuff, I give him my ideas and he gives me the Book. I always feel somewhat inferior based on his acute and expansive knowledge of the Book.

Compared to the Book, written by wise and revered masters, my ideas are the ideas of a circus clown.

He can dance rings around me when it comes to the Book and responds to every question with some profound quote from the Book. Oh sure, I know a little from the Book, like I know a little from other Books, but I can't quote from the Book or provide explanations as to the meaning of life from the Book.

He seems to live, eat and breathe the Book and life itself seems to have evolved right out of the Book.

Whatever idea I suggest, he tells me why it's silly because the Book says....

I say, "dude, the answers to life are not in that Book!" He responds, "oh really, so where do you get your answers from?"

I bumble off a ridiculous sounding, "life!" (and then I hear a muted trumpet in the background going...Wahwahwahhh...)

Unfortunately, this friend knows my past "life" and so, I know I'm beat down once again. I really don't know what to say, since there certainly is alot of profound stuff in the Book.

I mean, how can you argue with the Book!

The other day I actually started to intently read the Book in order to not seem so ignorant about the Book, especially when I'm around other Book Lovers like my friend.

Problem is, I quickly got bored and fell asleep.

Thanks,
MikeS

Your 'Mood' is Your Truth

Man, did I ever have shitty mood this morning. Funny how everything seems to deteriorate when your in a shitty mood. In fact, maybe our experience of 'world' is more a product of mood than any other aspect of self

We often like to speak of our experience of self and world by describing thoughts and feelings. But what about mood?

Often mood comes upon us for no apparent reason and we can’t really place exactly what thoughts or feelings preceded our mood. Mood permeates our being to the core and it’s the filter through which the world is, seemingly, lit up with light or veiled in darkness.


Yet, even though we often cannot identify the origin of mood, if it’s negative we will desperately seek an exit strategy. We desire mood be positive at all times and those who fail to exhibit positive consistency of mood we label as “moody.” We're really NOT seeking happiness, but a consistent positive mood.

Mood is ubiquitous and omnipresent. Mood gives meaning to every experience and IS experience.

Psychology tends to consider moods as crucial to functioning. This is why the exalted “Psychiatric bible” (Diagnostic and Statistical manual of mental disorders or DSM-IV) tends to classify impaired functioning under two chief headings: disorders of mood or disorders of personality. Yet I don’t want to discuss “mood” from a purely psychological perspective, but rather from an experiential or existential, lived-in experience.

Regardless of psychology’s assessment, we tend to pay less attention to mood, than we do to specific thoughts or emotions. However, it seems we are more acutely aware of our mood when it is negative and this may relate to Freud's pleasure principle, in which we feel naturally inclined to move away from pain or discomfort and move toward pleasure or comfort.

This is because mood is all-encompassing and deeply pervasive to our entire Being.

Moods can last for hours and even days and often we cannot specifically pinpoint what particular emotion, behavior, thought, physical condition or external situation has resulted in our mood. Once we find ourselves sunk into a specific negative mood, we may find it excruciatingly difficult to exit and thus, feel existentially ‘trapped’ in our mood. We tend to rate our moods along a positive/negative spectrum and mood can change instantaneously with little notice. We often tend to label moods as up or down, pessimistic or optimistic, with many derivatives in between.

The most important aspect of moods is that they tend to shape our world. In fact, the famous (and somewhat infamous) western philosopher, Martin Heidegger, has posited the theory that moods have the distinct capacity to manufacture or construct our individual 'world' experience.

Mood IS the world.

We don’t necessarily experience a world that then results in a mood, in accordance with what we experience, but instead press our mood upon the world and that is the world we experience. The important point is that mood and world interact as ONE.

Psychology holds that mood is the combination of interior states based primarily on cognitive interpretations of an external ‘world.’ Yet, Heidegger’s philosophical interpretation of mood (or “affectedness” as he refers to it) is different from most definitions of mood since it tends to expose, or "disclose," the world to us based on our mood and has little to do with what we believe we experience as a result of participating in the world.

Mood is an 'attunement' to the whole of humanity. However, Heidegger does not make the usual reference to any conventional term like mankind or humanity. Instead, he refers to humanity as “Dasein,” which is the German word for Being-in-the world, hyphenated to demonstrate unity.

World and mankind are one 'unit' or composite, which can never be divided or split. However, in our moods we obsess on parts of the world as the origin of our mood and thus fail to realize it is our mood that splits off our world. Therefore, the world might be consistent, yet we have no way of knowing since it is our moods that change and the world changes accordingly.

Mood gives us our ‘experience’ of time, outside chronological or intellectual time.

Nevertheless, I feel that Heidegger’s most important contribution is related to the terms authenticity and inauthenticity.

“The authenticity or inauthenticity of a mood is determined by whether it discloses the truth of Dasein [Being-in-the-world] or conceals this truth”.(Quentin Smith, Heidegger’s Theory of Moods, Michigan Univ., Phil Dept.).

For Heidegger, "Dasein," or Being-in-the world, is to be understood as a wholeness or unified state with no partitioning. Thus, mood’s that reveal that wholeness as Truth are authentic, while moods that conceal this truth from us he considers inauthentic. Our moods tend to “disclose” and reveal truth. Truth cannot be found in the world, yet the world is not to be separated from truth as we and the world are of a unified status. Our moods either inform of this unity or depart entirely from it and we experience this in relation to our mood.

Our mood can have us magically engaged in our "being-in-the-world" or withdrawn and isolated from this truth.

For Heidegger the chief mood of existence is anxiety. Anxiety can be authentic or inauthentic. Inauthentic anxiety attaches to the activities of the world, the hustle and bustle of trying to make a living and seeking happy diversions from the doldrums of living. This anxiety conceals being-in-the-world or our truth. Authentic anxiety is related to death and not-Being and is a deeper closing in on our very existence. It is what drives us to seek solace in religion and spiritual practices (this is my interpretation and not necessarily Heidegger's)

Yet, although he is considered the “philosopher of anxiety” he also deals with joy. However, this is directly related to authentic anxiety, “Although with the sober anxiety, which brings one before one’s individual ability-to-be, there goes an unshakable joy in this possibility” (Being and Time, p 310). To correspond with one’s Being-in-the-world, or the truth of this unified wholeness; to have this brought to mind completely unconcealed and disclosed to us, is a mood of magnified joy.

I believe this often occurs with those diagnosed terminally ill. They feel compelled to engage with world and make it "disclose" it truth. This is often a very liberating experience.

This does not necessarily require any belief in an external “source,” such as god or pure awareness. However, frequently spiritual paths facilitate this conceptualization as a way toward the self’s experience of being-in-the-world as a 'wholeness.' Nevertheless, we cannot deny that many have experienced this joy of unified wholeness without any conceptualized idea of god, universal consciousness, nirvana, enlightenment, awakening etc, etc, whatsoever. Although, because the experience is so unusual, the self seeks out interpretations for which to make sense of it. In any event, this blissful state is available to anyone at anytime and does not require any specified practices or ideologies to experience. However, it does demand a deep engagement with your 'experience' of the world no matter how painful that experience may become.

Thanks,
mikeS

If The World is "Illusion" Can I Quit My Job?

I often peruse the spiritual blogs, some of which are rather popular. You’ll find many great sentiments expressed. Mostly, however, they are buried in ideological frames of reference.

The ones I like the most are, “you are not an ego.” Or here’s my all time fave, “you are not a body.” Or, how about, “the world is an illusion.” Ha! Don’t tell me, tell my arthritis!

Yea, Okay, I get all that transcendent stuff. But then, I think, “okay, so I’m not a body. Does that mean I don’t have to lift my ‘body’ outa this bed at 5 am to get to work on time?”

I suppose some folks are ready to hear this stuff and I guess it all depends on where you’re at. As for me, it just doesn’t relate to my experience. I’d prefer they simply teach, “your are not in debt.”

Or, in relation to the body, “you are not a body that must diet.” Actually, I only need to lose about 15 lbs, so maybe, “you are not a body that must lose 15 lbs.” Now these are teachings I could relate to and live my life by.

I just wonder why they need us to go from 0-60 before we even leave the garage. It seems to smack of hypocrisy. I mean, here I am trying not to be a “body,” while at the same time stuffing my face.

I kinda liked the western existential philosophers, like Sartre, Marcel, Heidegger, et al. These guys seemed to know that it was the stuff of everyday experience that needed to be examined fully and eventually reformatted or even deconstructed. Like, you are not a consumer, or employee, taxpayer, homeowner, etc, etc, even eventually to the point where our more revered roles such as father, mother, daughter, husband, needed to be deconstructed and even stripped away.

I think all this ego-body transcendence needs to be more grounded in experiential reality before we head for the clouds.

Don’t tell me "you're not an ego," as I fork over $250 to participate in this retreat, because I’ll prove that we’re both ego’s in demanding your ego give it back. Ha!

Just saying...

mikeS

Is 'It' In Here or Out There?

Many integralists seem to accept as truth an 'interpretation' that Spirit is in the world so that one could perceive and exclaim, "Oh, Look at how beautifully it all unfolds! Look at how they dance across time, space, and knowing!"

Ken Wilber, Integral Theory founder, seems to advocate this interpretation as well, with his emphasis on 'evolution to/of Spirit' and he informs that by studying the evolutionary development of relative truths, that are illusion, we can then evolve to knowing the ultimate universal Truth (big 'T') which is 'real.'

This requires an interpretive "appreciation" of the relative truths that we "perceive." Yet, it is easy to SEE beauty in the world when we enfold our "perceptions" within that quality/concept, but then that points to the idea that the quality/concept of "beauty" is in the mind and essentially NOT in the world. Therefore, Truth must be a quality NOT available 'out there,' until we project it 'out there" or align our concepts/thoughts with the will to perceive it in the world. (oops, this sounds like Kant).

If Integral continues to take us 'out there,' does it not maintain our fixated obsession with qualities/concepts such as beauty, goodness and truth as inherent in the things themselves, rather than that which we infuse the things with? In fact, does seeking the good, beauty and truth in the thing-in-itself, merely idolize perception as the quintessential measure of knowledge?

Maybe there is NO Spirit 'out there,' only 'in here,' through which I choose to enfold 'out there' into. The problem is that, if I continue to believe Spirit is 'out there' it becomes easier to take myself out of the loop, so to speak. I (we) allow Spirit to dance in the world based on my (our) interpretation that it should be 'out there' and not that it really is, because nothing is 'out there' if it is all illusion.

We place it there, not Source/God. Spirit does not provide "gestures," we do. In fact, we control the presence of Spirit because Spirit is us and knowing this will allow us to provide ever deeper and greater "gestures" until soon it is all we SEE.

It is all of the mind and that includes belief in the perception of a "brain." This might be a superficial aspect to seeking Spirit, but I tend to think it may be an important distinction allowing for us to take greater responsibility for our current default thought processing and thus, self-imposed suffering.

Thus, if Spirit is 'in here,' and not 'out there,' then the more I correspond with my perceptions through Spirit "within," the more I enfold 'out there' into Spirit and essentially alter the illusional perception.

Make Your 'Self' a Vacuum.

Ahhh…spirituality is so life affirming. Our cup runneth over with life affirming sentiments and so many spiritual websites reflect this. But, what if this is not life and we’re simply waiting to realize ‘life.’ Are we then inadvertently affirming what is actually more a ‘death,’ than a life?

The ego is a ‘judgment’ machine. It has only two perspectives available through its enduring faculty of judgment, affirmation and negation. It either accepts or rejects. However, it seems clear that rejection of parts of reality create reality as much as acceptance.

Rejection of hate and war tends to affirm it as ‘real,’ which can only, inadvertently, reject love and peace. Affirming love and peace as real, affirms its opposite must also be real. Like one of those circular catch-22 situations, to affirm is to reject and to reject is to affirm and both make it real.

So why not just reject everything and affirm nothing?

Obviously, through this inverted, fuzzy logic, it seems you would then inadvertently affirm the existence of all opposites to what is rejected. For instance, if I reject love and peace, I would subsequently affirm hate and war.

Ahhh…but here’s the rub, not only can you reject hate and war, but love and peace as well.

Reject all of it. Make your ego a rejection machine through its capacity to judge. Rejecting something as ‘truth’ does not mean it must be destroyed, since destruction must be rejected as well.

Now, rejecting doesn’t take much work, as opposed to affirming, which asserts that you know truth. Merely respond to everything you think you know with “nope, that’s not it!” Because, obviously you have no idea what "truth' is so reject everything that represents itself as 'real' or truth in anyway.

Seems to me, this might be a lot easier for some folks, particularly those who have spent their lives rejecting hate and war in the belief that such rejection would make love and peace more abundant. Yet, clearly, in the preceding century, and into the present, hate and war seem on the upswing or, at the least, no less abundant than love and peace.

But the point is that we want hate and war to be entirely, or ‘absolutely’ absent and love and peace to be 'absolutely' present. Therefore, we need love and peace to be gone as well. Because, let’s face it, all we ever perpetuate are relative perspectives. One ego’s perception of the way to love and peace is another ego’s means to war. We’re seeking for absolute love and peace through relative perspectives, which can only engender and reinforce relative opposites such as hate and war.

So, go ahead, make yourself a vacuum and reject it all.

Reject hate and war, but also reject love and peace (because, now really folks, do we have any idea what love and peace are, absolutely?). Maybe all this affirmative spiritual-religious, blah, blah, blah is not what it’s about anyway and never was.

Now I certainly recognize this idea might be highly volatile to the lightworkers who have based, and conducted, their entire existence on spreading the light of love and peace. But wait till they get a load of the idea that all their spreading of the ‘light’ has only served to equally intensify the opposite, darkness. Actually, they have installed and reinforced the darkness as much as they have perpetuated the ‘light.’ I imagine they will reject this idea with all their might.

But then, obviously, that would prove the theory correct since, in our opposition we might not be very ‘loving.’ LOL!

So reject all of it and empty yourself of everything you think you know and accept the soothing vacuum of “nothingness” (of course, it’s frightening at first, but don’t worry, your ego will soon enjoy rejecting every idea it can conjure up and interpret as ‘truth). Reject that you know anything at all and thereby stop affirming what you know nothing about.

You see, the ego-self, makes interpretations and then experiences what it has interpreted. Therefore, in rejecting every interpretation your egoic mind comes up with, you’ll be free to allow for the surprise of “and now for something completely different” (Monty Python).

Otherwise, you’ll continue to experience what you’ve always expected which is cyclically equal parts of love and hate. Maybe real life has ‘absolutely’ nothing to do with all our relative perspectives and once we give them up we will be free to finally live with Truth.

Ready to reject all you know by accepting that you know nothing? Or would you prefer to continue to perpetuate what you know nothing about?

Of course, this means that you then must reject everything I have just said. Hahaa!!

Peace through rejection!

mikeS

Veteran of a Thousand Psychic Wars

It seems likely that the ego and mind are separate experiences. Yet the ego must deny the power of the mind in order to preserve and perpetuate itself. Because if “you” knew how powerful your mind was, you most likely would do away with the ego entirely.

The ego cannot allow this to even be considered, therefore, it attempts to belittle your mind and depreciate its power. It does this through minimizing your self-esteem, which results in self-depreciation and feelings of unworthiness.

Is it any wonder we so desperately seek out others to save us from ourselves, when we see our selves as utterly weak and powerless. It's always somebody else who must save us from ourselves.

This puts an ironic twist on the situation because, without the mind the ego could not exist. But, if the mind knew what it was ultimately capable of, it would annihilate the ego in the blink of an eye.

The ego does not know this as fact, so self-absorbed as it is, but it does sense that something bigger and more powerful than itself stands between it and its desire for complete domination and control of “you” (some refer to this sensing as “God”). Therefore, it’s forced to attack the very source that allows it to exist. Your mind.

And that’s why you are always your own worst enemy. Hahaa!

However, the real insanity of all this is that you believe that if you enlist and cooperate in the ego’s cause of strengthening itself and making itself more powerful, it will allow “you” to finally be happy. Unfortunately, a vicious circle is formed in which, by strengthening the ego to insure “you” are happy, you become increasingly more miserable due to the ego’s increased control.

So now you get the bright idea that the less ego the better. Yet the ego is a cunning bastard (for how else could it fraudulently represent itself as “you”) and twists the game of “transcending” itself to become a game to make it stronger and this is the irony of all spiritual paths that seek to transcend
the ego. The more you do to minimize the ego, the more the ego grows, simply because it has you convinced that IT is you and everything you do to leave it behind keeps it firmly in place.

But I'm Just saying…
mikeS