Certainty And Doubt
Certainty about doubt is doubt (1 . -1 = - 1)
Certainty about certainty is certainty (1 . 1 = 1)
Doubt about certainty is doubt (- 1 . 1 = - 1)
Doubt about doubt is certainty (- 1 . -1 = 1)
Yet there is no difference between certainty and doubt (1 - 1 = 0)
Certainty about certainty is certainty (1 . 1 = 1)
Doubt about certainty is doubt (- 1 . 1 = - 1)
Doubt about doubt is certainty (- 1 . -1 = 1)
Yet there is no difference between certainty and doubt (1 - 1 = 0)
This is what i am
In this life course, i am discovering this strange thing which is identity. Perhaps it is the only thing i exist for. Perhaps the only purpose to this life is to find the answer to the question: "who am i?"
But answering this question already reveals something interesting about the experience of the self and the understanding of that experience. To ask "who am i?", is to assume there already is a "who", that is a person, whose identity must be understood in terms of personal attributes. These attributes can be hyper-attributes (expressing adherence) or hypo-attributes (expressing individuality). Strangely there are no homo-attributes (not expressing gayness :) but rather as-is-ness if you allow a Frenchman to create a new word).
Two things appear from this simple question. There is (1) an assumption of there being a person, and (2) its attributes, which are relative. The assumption together with the observation that there is no descriptive homo-attributes, point to something interesting: the conviction of personality is conceptual inasmuch as self-observation does not reveal personality in and of itself, we cannot find personal attributes which are not related to the "person" universal.
So we could reduce the question to "what am i?", which expects an answer describing an object, something finite, with attributes. But again answering this question assumes there are objects, that "i am" is an object, something finite. If we would describe this object we'd have to describe as an hypo-object, i.e. the child of a larger class, a universal, of a given kind of object. If could also be described by its children, what it owns, what it does etc.
Again this question reveals something important: it is born of the assumption that what is sought is a thing and as we try to describe it, it must be described diagonally, with reference to objects it relates to. It depends on ideas an concept. We have no direct evidence of it being a thing at all, with all the attributes being a thing entails.
Now we could reduce the question to "am i?" The question (if we forget about person and object) is not hard to answer. Because the question in itself is the proof and the expression of the answer. The self is ... well, self-evident. And since it is not a person, not an object, it would be tempting to understand this "i" as the subject of the experience of self, and it seems evident then to name it "consciousness". It sounds like a great answer, it's mystical, impalpable, pretty much powerful, in fact. But then, finding a word to describe what we do not know is fine, but what does "being consciousness" mean? Can this consciousness be described directly? No, it can't? How is this consciousness known? Through the objects it refers to, or that refers to it. So here again we are facing something we do not know, of which we have no direct evidence, which is no describable. And yet: it is here, we know it, it is not pure darkness or light, it is apparent, so it has attributes, yet it is continuously changing and there seems to be no finite thing, which could serve as a reference point.
Could we cut down our question further? The question "am i?" is referring to there being an i. But as we have seen, the answer is self evident. There IS "i". We are not yet sure of what it is. Our question narrows down to "i?"
"i?"
How strange a question!
"i?"
Yet it points at something, it points towards itself. It points towards its existence, the expression of itself and yet it is expressed as a question, it remains mysterious. It is simple. It is simply this. It is neither object, nor subject, it simply is. It is this evident mystery. There is no word that cannot point to it, there is no word that can touch it.
This is what i am.
What Am I?
Spirituality often denotes the search of something supra-natural. I suspect that most who think of themselves as "spiritual" probably are attempting to become something better, super-human, above the ordinary---that is, if they do not think being so already.
But here is the flaw already: there is no supra-natural "nature", there is just the One Nature. It is not a matter of faith, it is of simple logic. Nature in itself denotes the entire phenomenal world and its mechanism, nothing, per-say exists beyond Nature. The dichotomy between natural and artificial is an anthropocentric rhetoric, residue of religions, filling the gap of the Unknown humans dread so, giving them a sense of control and security.
But the aim of this note is not to open an ontological, academic, discussion on existence and human beliefs. Trying to, succeeding at, gathering powers, is fine, it is part of the normal evolution of humans, it is natural. The point here is rather that spirituality as the quest of the supernatural, of the super-power, is merely another quest. Training in meditation (focusing the mind on breath, denying attention to thought etc.) is mere practice, it may lead to an increased mental ability. But what is it to spirituality? Or more important: what is it to Reality? What is it to You? What have you found about yourself then? You've find more systems, more limits, more needs to go beyond these limits, when a hyper-natural state is needed.
If it is not spirituality, what is the mere acceptance of what is, the world-and-yourself? The simple openness to see what is, as it appears? The acceptance of definitions and concepts, as being yet more appearance of this world-and-yourself? What is called the curiosity to hear what this Universe has to say when you finally listen to it?
This power is latent, it is already yours, it is already operating, you can light up the fire saying "what am i?", never to cease feeding the fire, never walking away with answers.
What is the most self-evident Reality?
What once was known to be true of things later becomes false. What is the single knowledge permeating all knowables like the thread which holds the beads? What is this ever-truth screaming through and as the senses? What is that which no words hold and holds all words? What is that which you cannot grasp but which has grasped you since you were? What is the most self-evident and yet unfathomable Reality?
A thought of Death
Sometimes the idea of Death takes me completely, it is frightening, terrifying, it challenges all the things which constitute my reference points. What i am what i think, what i live and witness, things, people, those i love, all this evaporates in an instant on the moment of this imagined Death. It is like waking from a dream. The difference is that, being truly Death in the sense of Nothing, there is no familiar world awaiting me beyond. In fact there is no me, there is no other, there is no thing, not even this singular consciousness which is the source of Reality. Death is the end.
Does such Death exist? If nothing truly exists in this world, if all things are dreams awaiting this morbid awakening, is the idea of Death then real? And is this Death it tries to point at real? Perhaps there is no real End to being. There is surely an end to Benjamin, for it is a finite thing. But is there a true End? Or is this simply a thought? When there is an end to Benjamin, what is then remaining? Does it have a form, does it know itself? Is it an awakening?
I have no answer to this question. But it does make this life-story precious as well as worthless. What is the meaning of this Life, of this World, to me? What is the meaning of "me" to this World? Is there anything more "me" than the sense of "i am Benjamin"? Beyond even the simple "i am"?
It is this gap of the unknown, so terrifying (why is it so terrifying?) which perhaps people escape with their ideas of "god" or "mission" or what not. I do not want to escape this vision, i want to delve into it deeper. I want to know the Truth, i want to witness the Source with my own Soul, (as if both were separate?). This terrible unknown mystery, will it be revealed? To whom? To what? What is of this Universe when Benjamin goes? What is the relationship between both? What is the meaning of Benjamin if it dies? What is the meaning of Love? What is the meaning of hate (what petty thing it seems now). I do not know how to value the world i feel around and as myself. What is it? What am i supposed to do with it? Why is there thought? Why is there belief in things? Why is this Universe trying to fool itself? What is real? What is unreal? What is reality, except for myself? How to live? How to die? How to wake up? Can i wake up? Can there be a waking up? to what? Yet another Dream?
I cannot imagine the terror of the death-bed, or perhaps the joy, to see Truth...
Just a thought, Death, storming through my soul, perhaps destroying, perhaps cleansing.
As you are
For about 3 to 4 years now i have spent my life repeating incessantly (with some exceptions) that "before, when i was free and open-minded, it was better". Perhaps it is so, perhaps not. Perhaps i am simply reconstructing a distorted past from traces of memories. And most probably by clinging onto this past i condemn myself not to live the present "freely" and "open-mindedly" as i wish it to happen. In fact the "past story" reveals the very obstacle i had discovered was "myself" in the sense that preoccupation for "what i am" looped my mind into anxious habits. Having faith in the simple "i am"-sense as the proof of the Impossible, is enough to find simple joy of existence. The rest is accessory.
Wanting to recreate the past is not only absurd but also self-destructive. Wanting to recreate the past emerges from a deep fear of confrontation with Life which we know (although we might ignore it) to also be Death. Attempting to recreate the past not only will fail to stop Death but it may prevent from Living.
You need (I need) not to recreate any condition to experience joy of living. Freedom (which you naturally know to be joy) is the fruit of emancipation. Radical emancipation is emancipation from your own needs. There is no need for anything to live and know joy of living. It is already the case, although clouded by needless worries. You are the proof of your own freedom, as you are.
Can you split light?
Can you split "light" from "sun"? In other words, how does the sun look like behind the light it shines?
Yes, it's impossible.
Yet the sun is not mere light. To the blind, the sun is warmth, to the Earth it is attraction, to itself it is mass.
So "light", "appearance", "warmth", "attraction", "mass" are inseparable from "sun". Despite our handling of each of these concepts as if separate, simple logic, without the need of instruments or academic knowledge reveals their inadequacy.
Can you split "light" from "sun"?
Can you split "yourself" from "the world"?
If not, what are you?
Yes, it's impossible.
Yet the sun is not mere light. To the blind, the sun is warmth, to the Earth it is attraction, to itself it is mass.
So "light", "appearance", "warmth", "attraction", "mass" are inseparable from "sun". Despite our handling of each of these concepts as if separate, simple logic, without the need of instruments or academic knowledge reveals their inadequacy.
Can you split "light" from "sun"?
Can you split "yourself" from "the world"?
If not, what are you?
Musics resonates. The world is magic. Without beginning and ending. It dances on its own pulsating life. Rain of tears fill seas of love. No end to death, pure experience Continuous loss and mourning Reborn in discovery. Young sprouts will break through humus, The Sunshine combs their hair, and Benjamin's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)