Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Self and the Fall of Man

A love letter, written to a 'client' this morning....

Dear M,

I still think you have an intellectual understanding and not experiential, so we should continue to work on this.
Though we've talked about how this is factual, because of your years of experience in the spiritual world, I can see in your writing that there is still a cloak of emotions surrounding your idea of what seeing this might look like. You'll have to jettison that for now because this is so very much practical that it can completely be explained in a scientific way. Now, that can be quite a disappointing thing to hear for someone with your experience, but what it also does is to make this completely accessible.

Make no mistake, this is entirely accessible, and without struggle. What's needed, however, is to look at this in a very matter-of-fact way. The question of a separate self is actually a 'yes or no' and very quick answer. The struggle is in trying to see that through the bullshit spirituality dishes out about bliss and love and peace. All of that isn't there going in to the inquiry.

Is that awful to hear? I'll repeat it, though, so that we can bring your expectations in line with the work to be done.

This is in no way spiritual. This is factual, and as a matter of fact, thinking that a self exists is what's so damned weird. The practical matter is that it is nowhere to be found. And what do you need to surrender to? The loss of that crap sold by gurus just to keep people hanging on. If you do surrender it, you'll see what's so plain and clear that you'll wonder how you've missed it this whole time, and then you'll realize that you were looking past it for the brass ring.

Where is the self? It's not mysterious, not mystical. Where is this thing the brain has been conditioned to believe is automatically there? Why in the world can it not be found anywhere outside of a concept? Why has no one, throughout history, found one? What is plain when looking out through the eyes? The WHOLE WORLD is there in the view, without a single trace of a self.

And then the conditioning comes in and completely dismisses this absolute and astonishing fact, and we go back to believing in something no more real than unicorns and fairies.

It's really unbelievable. We are literally brainwashed. The whole world is. And THAT, in a nutshell, is the Fall of Man.

Monday, April 22, 2013


Why can't you see this?
Because of a tiny, habitual assumption that goes undetected.

  The assumption is that there is a 'you' who sets out to do the inquiry.


Wednesday, April 17, 2013

It's Not Just That There's No You...

In recent discussions, the notion of 'best direct pointers' has come up often. While accuracy of language and phrasing is entirely subjective and without a final truth to be landed upon, the question has led to an examination and refinement in the phrasing I use.  Let's take a look.  
Which pointer do you find more helpful in opening your mind up to a line of inquiry...

1.  There is no you.
2.  There is no tangible you.

I've used both, though feel that the first is more direct and effective.  But the second one is, for lack of a better word, more 'accurate'.

The problem with number 1 is that it can lead to a nihilistic view.  With number 2, the individual can try to work the concept of 'tangible' instead of working the concept of 'you'.  This has led to a pointing style in which I start off with "There is no you." and work into looking at how that phrase can be true when we compare tangible objects to the idea or concept of a self.  So we're looking at what is known to the five senses, and comparing that to what's ungraspable.

But that's only a first step, and with some, once the no(t) self insight comes,  I do further work on the nature of time and space, and then examine objects themselves.  This broader inquiry loosens the conceptual framework of that steadfast "I".

If I had to say which types of pointers reconcile the two statements made above, what's most true is this:

The YOU doesn't exist in the way it's assumed to.  There's no 'historical you', 'present you', or 'future you'.  There's no actual entity which lives through time and space, only thoughts which appear to pop up in time.  And thoughts appear just one at a time.

Ok, think about that.

Thoughts appear just one at a time.

This means that each time the 'I' or 'self' is referenced, it comes up, and then disappears along with the thought.

There is no entity moving from thought to thought.

But existing only within a single fleeting thought is not how humans see the self, even though that's actually the only way it can be said to Be.

Test this.  Thoroughly.

photo credit:  CommanderDex on Deviantart

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

Love Letter to a You

I must like the idea of writing a letter to a seeker because here's another....

Dear You,

You don't exist.
Never have. 
Not in the way you THINK you do.

Listen to the surroundings.  
Can sound help but be heard?

Look at the sights.  
Can sights help but be seen?

Feel. Reach out and touch something.  
Can sensation help but be felt?

This is so very obvious to the You, isn't it.  "I see that!", you tell me in our exchanges.  "But I still FEEL a me!"

You're frustrated.

The very fact that you're frustrated demonstrates the obvious.  There is no you in control, just life happening. Frustration happening.  Did a You choose to be frustrated?

So look again.  Do it now.

Can you see that words on a screen led to that looking?  Was there a you that the words had to wrestle with or did it just naturally flow from the reading?  The assumption is that the sentence reads, "YOU should look."    "You should now listen."  "You should now feel."

That's not what was asked.  And there's a reason why the directive does not need a noun or pronoun.

There is no "I" doing the looking, the seeing.

Monday, April 8, 2013

Dear Seeker, It's Never Easy to Write This....

I'm not sure how many ways I can tell you this, and so most times I just have to repeat myself.  You don't listen.  Thoughts crowd out the very ability to listen to direction.  And!  You often become frustrated with this direction and walk away from our inquiry thinking that the pointer can't be of much use.  You assume that the person giving it is just wrong about what it is you need to hear in order to see this.  But the truth is,

You're wrong.

There's a reason why this particular pointer is the most effective I've come across.  It's direct.  Blunt.  It leaves no room for discussion, and my role is to end the discussion entirely. 

I don't want a dialogue with you! 

Don't be offended by that.

While a dialogue may help you to UNDERSTAND what's being said, that understanding isn't what's going to get this done.  I'll tell you what will and I'll give it my best shot, knowing that it's worked for hundreds of people already, maybe thousands.  Here it is, so listen up.

Just Look.

That's it.  It's the best and most thorough pointer you're going to find if you could just stop long enough to do what's directed. 

Now, you have to ask yourself this... how is it that this pointer can be it.  The one.  Everything.  The KEY?  Go ahead and ask that question.  Test it out.  Tear it up.  How is that IT?

And when you hit a brick wall, just maybe you'll do what's being asked which is to notice that a speck of dust is more real than the self.  A droplet of dew is more real than the self has ever been or can ever be. 

How is that true?  In what way is that true?

When the answer comes, just stop and take that in.  Then scan that brain for all of the teachings which say that this is simple.  Childlike.  Humble.  Think of all the accounts of those who've 'gotten it' and said that they couldn't believe how simple it is.  And the look of wonder?  It's not because they're suddenly seeing pixie dust or rainbows.  It's because they stopped to follow the directive, and then they saw the truth of REALITY AS IT IS.


Look at the picture in this post.
What is seen?
What is absent?

Look at anything.
Any time.
What is seen?
What is not?

photo credit:  soft drop by JimmyJaszczurka