One says the crickets chirp their unadulterated joy;
another says they sing their fervent desire.
Are they two?
The fundamental formulation of human self-contradiction: When nothing at all will do, what does one do?
Look, you’re always here trying to be over there. And you never get there. Because as soon as you get there, you want to be somewhere else. That’s who you are, this living self-contradiction, a dog trying to catch its own tail, always at a distance from yourself, always fraught with dis-ease. No matter what you do, you can’t escape it. ‘Not able to escape it’ means there’s no point to paper it over, to avoid it or rationalize it away or hide it from yourself with busyness, anger, condemnation, blame, pride, drugs or what have you. That would be like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to get out of trouble. It just won’t work.
So, when nothing at all will do, now what? Look, there’s just who you are: pain-opposed-to-pain. Since there’s no escape from this dis-ease, really there’s no choice but to stay with the truth of yourself, stay with the conflict that you are. Nothing but that, nothing at all opposed to that. Without choice – choicelessly without resistance, since resistance is futile – see through the dilemma you are, without a hair’s breadth of separation.
One may address this dilemma by seeing through it, by seeing through self, using self-contradiction as the vehicle of its own exhaustion. It’s a matter of seeing through the mutually-affecting processes that we take as self: sensation, perception, feelings, motivations and habits, even consciousness itself, seen through, exhausted – seen through, bared as empty.
All of it ground to a halt, the whole story of a fixed and separate self dismantled, what’s here?
Your slightest lapse results in death,
as does your every attention:
look to your right;
stay as you are –
in each case
what falls away
and what remains?
Where is the place without the sharp edges, hinges or catches on which you cut yourself up?
Is it change that causes psychological imbalance?
Or is it fixity and conclusion?
Isn’t it less likely for a mind fluid amidst impermanence to be harmed?
All your concepts and images are
executed in a certain style
you may not even know you have,
flowering life and death
overflowing the frame.
You watch a competition, two teams that you know well and, when you consider it, you are watching just for the joy of it – because you’re sure you don’t really have a rooting interest.
Then the competition gets under way and, despite your neutrality, you find yourself moved to root for one over the other.
Who’s got a favorite?
Scientific studies demonstrate that present awareness is only aware of past events happening some micro-seconds before. Such studies also indicate that decisions are made without conscious awareness, though through the play of the mind we feel as if an ‘I’ has taken a conscious decision about something that has already occurred.
So we are not consciously aware of the present; we are aware of a past moment. More, since that moment has passed, we are aware of a certain perspective on that moment, perhaps recalling the sun on one’s face but not the chair pressing against one’s bottom. So what we are aware of is partial, is in fact a fiction. And we imagine that we are consciously in control of our actions when we are not.
In each being living in this way together with the myriad phenomena, the wholeness of the world comes to fruition.
If a story, a fabrication, a lie, dismantled itself,
what would it yield?
Is there a naked, underlying truth of ‘the way things actually are’ to be bared
or are narrating, fabricating, and lying simply bared –
narrating, fabricating, lying continuing on -
themselves in some way truth?
Shorn of a narrator, only the happening itself occurring, doesn’t the ‘either/or’ of ‘truth v. lies’ vanish?
When someone steps out into the path of an incoming bus and you yell, ‘Watch out!’, isn’t this utterance the resolution of all perceptual fabrications – and too the end of the separation of self and other?
Isn’t it also that the narration into a potential future (you know what will happen when the bus comes) in-forms the present circumstance to form its truth?