opening eyes

opening eyes for the first time is like getting your head above water and breathing in air for the first time. after having been gone for an indeterminate amount of time, we are suddenly purely and intensely here.

in reality, we have periods of intense awareness sporadically throughout our lives, whether or not we practice to achieve them. but the nearly unbroken chain of mental identification that appears to take place within most of us most of the time can cast a surprisingly alluring spell on our attention, making us believe thoughts are indeed real and who we are is absolutely contingent upon a mental position.

accepting the presence of mental activity and being simultaneously aware of one's nature as the object-perceiving awareness rather than the object itself, life is approached from a different perspective, one that is not as strongly rooted to a limited sense of self but perceives its very essential nature as inextricably linked to everything it perceives.

when we suddenly realize that we are an aware presence encapsulated in a body with no true knowledge of why we find ourselves immersed in this human experience, we touch a true source of humility. we are ignorant to how exactly we've gotten here. it's as if we suddenly awoke within a dream and acknowledged to ourselves the fact that we don't know what this is or why we're here. we look and see with lucid unknowing. enlightened ignorance: the first step in any direction to finding out, since no answer can be provided without a question having been asked in some form or another.

while none of us will probably ever have all the answers, it is possible to arrive at a realization of one's existential, experiential nature that contrasts pretty vastly with what we may have been conditioned - or conditioned ourselves - to believe we were. being aware of one's ultimate nature as consciousness itself does not necessarily answer all questions, but with regard to one's sense of what one is it removes the need for a question to be formed in the first place. one is what one is as one feels oneself - not even that, since for one thing to feel another there has to be a perception of distinction; one firstly and primordially is, and all else comes after and falls within that.

to have a glimpse of awakeness as you're strolling from your car to work or school is like suddenly inhabiting an unsolved mystery, looking behind eyes that are as much an enigma as what they see. insects, trees, sky... what is it all? becoming passionate about finding the answer to this riddle we feel tugging on our very heartstings is the spark that will lead to a fire that will lead to a sudden flash of recognition: the recognition of something so obvious and intimate it is like we finally realized a truth that has been completely self-evident throghout every moment of our lives but has somehow managed to stay out of conscious awareness. since knowing what we are (by virtue of being it consciously) is the most relevant thing that could possibliy be, residing in a state of prevailing existential unconsciousness creates a deep-rooted and highly invested-in source of dysfunction, of unnecessary suffering.

life is not always easy but it can be an awe-filled, beautiful experience for which one feels an overwhelming sense of gratitude. it can be an adventure filled with adversity but on fire with passionate discovery and flooded by joy, contentment, and love. the alternative (the fear-driven life of ego-identification) is like hell compared to heaven.

the shift in human consciousness from "it's me against the world" to "i am a part of everything i see and everything i see is a part of me" is drastic and radical. it marks the beginning of the end of one thing, and the beginning of quite another. making unmistakable contact with our true nature may not solve all of the issues we think need solving, but it will resolve the one drive that, with or without our awareness, has provided the basis for every experience in our life.

wordless answer

if every single memory, opinion, belief and self-associated thought suddenly and irrevocably exited your consciousness, and you became a total blank slate in terms of mental self-definition, would the you you currently think yourself to be cease to exist? what would be the significance of such an event? would the mental you that existed prior to it come to an end, and a new - though perhaps similar - mental self emerge? would it represent the existence of two separate entities, two different egos, in one human body? or would there remain an underlying, prevailing truth throughout? and if so, what is it about you now that would be just as true about you if you forever lost access to every memory, and every thought you've ever had?

no split

there is no division between those who consider themselves "spiritual" and those who prefer a more "worldly" approach to living. these terms are just labels; convenient perhaps for communication's sake, but not pointing to an absolute reality.

in truth, we're all playing by the same rules. there is but one standard against which our destinies are measured, and that's the degree of our spiritual development.

but why call it spiritual? it's not spiritual; it's just life. calling it spiritual seems to relegate it to a separate compartment of life, as if a person could choose to be spiritual or not in the same way they can choose to be a sports enthusiast, a butterfly collector or a professional cook.

the difference is, if we're not into collecting insects we remain relatively unaffected by the world of entomology, while if we don't consider ourselves to be a "spiritual person" our subjective experience of life continues to be entirely determined by our level of truth-awareness.

claiming to be "non-spiritual" doesn't get us categorized differently and make us answerable to a different set of rules, exempt from the "spiritual" consequences of our actions. in the same way, merely claiming to be "spiritual" doesn't win us any favors. the realization of truth and happinness is arrived at through each step we take on the path, not by making statements about what kind of person we are.

spirituality in its most basic, real and powerful form is a mode of living that dissolves the obstacles to enlightenment, transporting us from confusion and ignorance to realization and on to growing levels of awareness of the true nature of reality (to say "the true nature of reality" is equivalent to saying "the truth about ourselves").

existential ignorance and all the forms of suffering and negativity it spawns are present to one degree or another until the realization of one's true nature dawns. once this recognition occurs, sincere love and its tremendously powerful healing potential is manifested in ever-expanding ways. in this sense, spiritual development is the most relevant aspect of life, and should logically be the prime object of focus for those who wish to bring an end to their suffering. it's the most important factor regarding one's own welfare and that of humanity.

this doesn't mean that everyone should drop what they're doing and take up a particular spiritual practice. since spirituality points directly to the subjective experience of life itself, "spiritual" lessons can be learned through any endeavor as long as there is a willingness to progress in one's understanding of "self" and life. information traditionally denoted as spiritual, however - if genuine - can be enormously catalytic for those who are consciously striving for truth in the same way an umbrella is more effective at keeping you dry in a storm than throwing a shopping bag over your head; it's specifically designed for the particular purpose of facilitating awakening.

no practice

it takes practice to create and maintain a mental idea of who you are, it takes effort to stop investing in the activity of maintaining a false notion of self... but to be what you really are - what you’ve always been despite everything - requires no practice, takes no effort.

interaction!

there was a comment to the scheduling postponement post today by an anonymous writer. i'll respond to what i felt were the central ideas expressed:

"How about discussing what the fundamental truth is. What is life? Or if you prefer what is self ... I would like you to speak more of truth and less of action for discovery."

as i understand it, truth, life, self is existenceness. it's the alive and aware space that holds everything and is everything. it's right there to be experienced as the absolutely present truth of what you are; never increased, never diminished.

because it's always there, it's hard to recognize. it doesn't have a beginning and an end, doesn't stand out against a backdrop. we're accustomed to focusing on things with borders, defined things. this can't be defined or pointed out. it is the backdrop and the things it holds. you can't single it out and and say: "see? this is truth."

but i ask sincerely, not rhetorically, why truth itself should be described? a description won't lead to the experience of it for those who haven't recognized it for themselves, because it can't be grasped and created with the mind.

"Do not waste your effort trying to teach those who are asleep. But instead teach those who are awake and are ready to learn."

those who are asleep are exactly the ones i'm speaking to, if by asleep we take to mean ignorant to one's true nature. i'm obviously not directing these words to those not interested in finding out, but to those who are consciously searching for truth and receptive.

i suppose that those who no longer pay homage to mental ideas of selfhood and have ceased to engage in the constant maintenance involved with such a thing have little or no need for these words.