engaged

Posted December 25th, 2011 by Annie

I had several visitors last night as I laid in bed; half way between deep sleep and subtle dreamlessness.

I was startled to wakefulness, becoming aware of a conversation I was having.

I never heard a reply with my conscious or olfactory senses, although my responses indicated I did.

I questioned the identity of my guest, by supposition of my most recent confidant.

I saw what appeared as clothing and style of my prior form, indicating I had yet to choose correctly the time we had met.

Like a common theme for the seasonal movie, ghosts of Christmas; the "past" was most poignant.

I can't say what we talked about or perhaps what secrets we shared, instead I am left with some impressions.

I have changed my mind, or tried some other reframing on Spirits and Angels and God.

Perhaps I denied something I should have maintained, and perhaps deny does not mean what you may think.

The word "deny" as I write it, explodes in all directions of meaning. Even the scenery I paint is misleading.

If I could tell you one thing to remember, like I tell myself right now...on Christmas Morning.

Denial is every bit as severe, as one would deny their lover, one cannot deny all stages of life.

From magical to mystical and higher, where visions of friends and luminous images lose their engagement.

Remembering the pain, I chose its absence, and in so doing I denied my own Mystery.

I can't think of what it means, I can only swim in its misunderstanding, but misunderstanding too, has responsibility.

I was angry because I couldn't decide, am I talking to myself as the autonomy I have climbed?

And too, I was angry because all those I deny touching, denied me; in all my many layers.

Even now, it would be easy to cry, and that is never easy for me.

I still don't know what to make of it all, or how I need to reconcile.

I have yet to reach the close of Christmas day, and so I promise to engage. Perhaps "engage" can climb to further meaning.

Merry Christmas!

Please Login to Add Comments
show all sub-comments
Report Abuse

engaging…

Posted December 25th, 2011 by Charles Bowling

Hi Anne,

Thank you for your heartfelt poetic post. Writing this way is not easy; it’s authentic and sincere for sure but easy, no way.

There is almost a plaintive cry here; one that contains no hints of desperation but is suggestive of a real call, something almost revolutionary in scope; I see it as a rare form of soul-searching, indeed a nitty-gritty aspect of human aspiration.

Is my view that such heartfelt supplications do not go unnoticed in the subtler areas of human comprehension; rather they tend to evoke a certain sort of feel or resonance.

So I say it's a good trick to be soulful, to in the same moment enjoin sadness and joy!

-Charles

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

from limitation even greater, more firmly set, and dubious

Posted December 25th, 2011 by Ambo Suno

I say hello and wish you well. Thank you.

ambo

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

translucent engagements, misty interpretations

Posted December 25th, 2011 by Layman Pascal

>I can only swim in its misunderstanding, but misunderstanding too, has responsibility.

I like this.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

oh do tell!

Posted December 25th, 2011 by Annie in response to translucent engagements, misty interpretations

been what? Or perhaps it is just part of your charm - smile---

Ms. Anne Alferos

connoisseur of harangues

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Ladies & Gentlemen... Jimmy Carr

Posted December 25th, 2011 by Layman Pascal in response to oh do tell!

Dear Ms. Alferos,

Nice of you to connoisseur & note signature shifts.

I just saw the British comedian Jimmy Carr -- left the stage with "Thanks, I've been Jimmy Carr." It was exquisite. It was like when Groucho, in Animal Crackers, proposed a bigamous marriage to two women, adamantly refuses to allow any other women to join them on their honeymoon, admits that a few other women might be okay, adamantly refuses to allow any men to join them -- and, for integrity's sake, decides that he might no go himself. Painted into and out of the corner of one's own objective identity.

Or as Sri Ramana Maharshi would say, "Who is the One who has been You?"

Nan yar!

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

ah, but it might be one of those things you got to see!

Posted December 25th, 2011 by Annie in response to Ladies & Gentlemen... Jimmy Carr

Hey Layman,

If I am following you correctly (?), you may have picked up on why I said; Even the scenery I paint is misleading.

The scenery was painted as a series of characters all conversing with me, and yet it was "denial" --the thought and reality of the word that brought the contrasting new paradigm, not as one denies another, but "denial" like a noun. Not a surprise but a simple denial, not secrets shared - but a denial. Even the voice that responds to something I can't hear, is just a denial.

When I learned that there was really no "other" in the absolute sense...I wondered why I heard someone speaking to me and not hear with my ears or my mind, I was just the voice who answered...and my response validated the One who spoke. As if, had I not responded, there would be no one talking, and yet both speaker and listener were equally Real.

That began a long time ago, and I changed my mind many times. Perhaps I didn't keep some aspect intact, by maintaining its integrity. So I dreamt last night of how it all began - what I hope is that this time I will include it all more completely.

Please Log in to Vote.

1 out of 1 members found this useful.

Hello... I must be going!

Posted December 25th, 2011 by Layman Pascal in response to ah, but it might be one of those things you got to see!

IF (a big if?) we're on the same wavelength, then:

That which IS prior to appearance cannot appear. Even what presents it by saying it cannot appear... does not present it. The Already is soooooooooooooo already that every epiphany already rejects it.

Or, as the archangels told me: "God? He was JUST here a minute ago..."

Or, as Christians say, "The tomb of the saviour was found empty..."

Or, as Egyptians said, "Lord Osiris is gone away to the underworld..."

From the SHOBOGENZO of Dogen:

Monk, "Who has grasped the secret of the Fifth Ancestor?"

Huineng, "Whomever has understood the Buddhadharma."

Monk, "Master...have you realized what the Fifth Ancestor realized?"

Huineng, "I have not."

Monk, "Why not?

Huineng, "Because I have not understood the Buddhadharma."

Both speaker and listener have to come 'round to the same side in order to observe that what they are both observing DEFINITELY ISN'T (and that's a big "definitely").

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

I've been thinking...

Posted December 26th, 2011 by Annie in response to Hello... I must be going!

Hi Layman,

Before I jump into your language I need to know that you understand what I am actually saying. I don't see any way into what you are describing from the perspective I am looking at.

I am describing an appearance (appears before the mind) and a perception, separate but not independent of each other, from this view each is distinguishable and each cannot be denied. From the side in which I speak, it would seem that to inhabit the other is vegetative, whereas both occur as One...both would not be-- if not for Other.

Another way that this is perceived is according to contrast, I contrast "response" according to physical and literal stimulations and that which is neither.

When I read your comments last night, I thought you were suggesting that the reconciliation was where the two became One reality, and although that is true, I must make the case that it can never be inhabited as One.

I am capable of responding to something beyond my mind and anything that can be perceived by my physical body...but I suppose I should clarify that with the known stimuli (what I know). So, if I say that I cannot be absorbed or fully engulfed in the Ultimate Other and continue to function, that would be incorrect. But I have to say that as a body-mind that functions, it cannot be completed (or made to function fully within its own boundaries) if one were to include the Source of the One speaking.

It seems to me that my exposure to Buddhism in its limited capacity has hindered my ability to read between the lines, perhaps I am doing that now...feel free to correct me.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

The Source? No thanks...

Posted December 26th, 2011 by Layman Pascal in response to I've been thinking...

The following is wonderful:

"It seems to me that my exposure to Buddhism [...] has hindered my ability to read between the lines. "

Thanks for the clarifications.

Here's a little from my side:

Sometimes in arcane Euro-philosophy they say, "All things are constituted by their own excess." I cheerfully summarize this as, "It takes two to make one."
You seem delightfully sensitive to the different ways in which this relation (2:1) can be held. The simplicity of the human brain orients to laziness. Or, more charitably, tidiness. That is to say we try to get rid of the universal quibble by supposing that the 2 should be synthesized somehow in order to re-establish the "holy order" of 1. This never really works. But the other way requires a little more from us. We need to tolerate that 2 is only 1, and 1 is only 2.
Sufis express non-dualism in their adoration of the Divine Other. They experience their unresolved longing AS the prior completion & ecstasy of unified being.
One time, a girl & I took a bunch of LSD and performed certain occult invocations designed to produce the Higher Self... (silly, crude story but it goes somewhere interesting). A few hours later I saw my Big Self, tangible, hovering all around -- but 'he' was like the flow of electricity though a circuit. Only when I felt into the gaze of my beloved, and received something particular from that gaze, was the circuit established. I needed "she and me" to be ME. Understandably, this shape echoed through all patterns of reality in that moment.

It takes two to make one. Trying to be one is not feasible. Only an allure. A bit like what Lacan called "the little towards" (le petit a). It is a benign definition of neurosis. Better, much better, to be two -- in the right way. Then One is present for sure.

So, considering the episode from the Mana Shobogenzo we find that Master Huineng, a doubtless & supreme realizer, can only respond to questions about "attaining oneness" (i.e. the state of the 5th ancestor, understanding of the buddhadharma) through a difficult-to-believe gesture of DENIAL.

On the other hand...

The idea that a functional body-mind cannot complete itself successfully if it includes the Source of the One speaking could be, as you know, an assumption based in resistance.

This uncanny similarity between limitation and the Unlimited is one of the extraordinary keys to deciphers the "koan" way of thinking.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Hi Layman,

Posted December 27th, 2011 by Annie in response to The Source? No thanks...

I really enjoy dialoguing with you, you have a tendency to write a summary and then give a little creative spark of something new. It affirms me and my contribution, then adds the "something" that I attribute to a sort of germination of the two of us. That's my interpretation...and I am sticking with it LOL!

For the record though, re: laziness or tidiness; there are just some things that need to be excruciatingly articulated, but only as a means of relinquishing certain ideas that have a tendency to get us on the wrong track (that would be me...for sure). For me it is like finding out the earth is round, it completely reorients our entire thinking. It may not seem like such a big deal, but when you travel in a distance thinking that your will reach some end-point...perhaps you are hesitating for that reason while not moving as if the road is steady. Similar to that analogy, are the things that we need to get right - up front - then our development and integration has a better chance.

If you haven't noticed...this is 50+ years of Christianity talking, so my problems may not be yours, but I just consider the numbers of Christians in the world that will understand.

The idea that a functional body-mind cannot complete itself successfully if it includes the Source of the One speaking could be, as you know, an assumption based in resistance.

I must admit that reading this was like touching a sore spot, but a part of me wanted to say but...what about...etc. I sometimes play this game with myself, how far into my mind can I travel and still get back to my body. Obviously I have yet to travel so far that I could not return, but I always get the sense that the Ultimate Awareness is not meant to drown in but to swim in. Our entire being swims in those waters, but as a life-force we need to breath, and that means we must maintain our bodily function. We must befriend limitations and illusions but it is always contrasted with the water that sustains every and all activity. So, if a giant wave suddenly appears and catapults us across dimensions we could have never traveled by our own movements, we just know that that is the suchness of our existence, and then we are always ready to offer praise and thanksgiving for the majesty of All.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

hmm.

Posted December 27th, 2011 by Shikha Sabharwal in response to Hi Layman,

Hello Annie,

I feel compassion, concern, reading your tone, here. I think I understand, or may have had similar experiences, in the past, but I hesitate to affirm or even really interpret what you're saying, till I am certain.

Would it be alright if I were to ask you to clarify? Thanks, Anne. Happy new year, to you.

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

a christian half-century

Posted December 27th, 2011 by Layman Pascal in response to Hi Layman,

Sounds like a pretty good interpretation to me.

I think you're right about the need to assimilate and/or relinquish certain tricky feelings through "excruciating articulation" (i.e. chewing thoroughly). This is exactly the type of thing which our lazy/tidy-seeking brain tries to put down as quickly as possible.

Nietzsche (a good Christian, from my perspective) used to talk about "philosophizing with a hammer". The basic idea is very broadly applicable -- approaching all your ideas & ideals and working them over to see if they are reliable or misleading. The hammer bangs on things to see if they are hollow or not.

My instinct has always been to approach my own samadhis tentatively, with great caution, hoping to integrate them gracefully rather than snapping the elastic and cutting free into that Other Side. The ultimate is not meant to be psychosis or trauma. But our goal, I'll wager, is not to "get there" but rather to "make There become Here". So we are trying to strengthen our capacity to be an existential interface, a channel for the Divine. The image the Goddess Kali's necklace of skulls (all the minds she's "blown") is a poetically drastic remnant of a overly stern epoch. "Going all the way" is partly an ascender's fantasy which neglects the already present divinity of the condition, the non-dualism of the dual, the truth of the illusions.

But, I think, we just have to make sure that the authentic project of leaning to play both the Ultimate & Bodily-functions at the same time doesn't act like... a rationalization for our reticence.

Thanks, I've been...

Layman Pascal

(to receive other "Weekly Harangues" write to: pretendtomeditate@gmail.com)

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

Please Log in to Vote.

0 out of 0 members found this useful.

Thanks

Posted December 25th, 2011 by G Campbell

Merry Christmas to you too

Please Login to Add Comments
Report Abuse

User login

Quick Links

The Archives

Please Log in to Vote.

engaged

Please Log in to Vote.

engaging…

Please Log in to Vote.

yes, and thank you!

Please Log in to Vote.

from limitation even greater, more firmly set, and dubious

Please Log in to Vote.

oh my,

Please Log in to Vote.

translucent engagements, misty interpretations

Please Log in to Vote.

oh do tell!

Please Log in to Vote.

Ladies & Gentlemen... Jimmy Carr

Please Log in to Vote.

ah, but it might be one of those things you got to see!

Please Log in to Vote.

Hello... I must be going!

Please Log in to Vote.

I've been thinking...

Please Log in to Vote.

The Source? No thanks...

Please Log in to Vote.

Hi Layman,

Please Log in to Vote.

hmm.

Please Log in to Vote.

Hi Shikha,

Please Log in to Vote.

a christian half-century

Please Log in to Vote.

Thanks