lies are loud, truth is humble

not speaking runs counter to ego because the illusory self feels a constant need to assert itself.

if the belief in ego as the ultimate source of identity is to be perpetuated, a constant level of noisemaking must be maintained; otherwise, what existence would our fabricated identities have? it is thoughts, whether externally voiced or internally recorded, that are used to construct the highly complex and ultimately false body of evidence that, as long as we continue offering worship to, keeps us alienated from the simple experience of truth.

truth is that which doesn't require theatricity but is already (and immutably) real. as opposed to illusion, we don't have to do absolutely anything in order for truth to be real. nothing we do or fail to do, nothing that happens or fails to happen, can make reality any more or less real. in silence, then - the backdrop of which is always present - truth emerges of its own.

truth is not some philosophical concept or unattainable goal. it is very personal and very relevant. it is what we are.

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.

hardcore zenning it at the SAZ

recently i had the pleasure of meeting Brad Warner (former punk rocker, current zen monk, and author of several books on zen buddhism, including Zen Wrapped in Karma Dipped in Chocolate: A Trip Through Death, Sex, Divorce, and Spiritual Celebrity in Search of the True Dharma) at the san antonio zen center (SAZ).

i'd read an earlier book of his (Hardcore Zen) a few months back and appreciated the fun and informal style Brad uses to convey truth. his book is both playful and lighthearted (such as when he asks us "[w]ho the hell are you really?" and assures us he's "not talking about your name, your place of birth, or the number of hairs on your butt") and, for me at least, powerfully resonant:

"Truth has to be bigger than theories, bigger than explanations, bigger than symbols. Truth can't just explain everything. It has to include everything. It has to be everything."

Brad's sincere, humorous, and accessible approach to spirituality really spoke to me. so when i heard he'd be paying a visit to the small house in san antonio's humble woodlawn lake neighborhood the SAZ calls home, i figured the pressures of grad school could be put on hold for a morning with the world's leading exponent of hardcore-punk-zen-buddhism.

about twenty of us gather to do a little sitting and walking meditation and hear Brad speak. (if you're interested in listening to the talk, by the way, it was recorded and can be accessed via iTunes here.) all in all, my personal opinion - not that it means anything beyond the fact that it's my opinion - is that Brad speaks from a depth of sincerity that can only emerge from a direct encounter with truth.

i say this based on what he speaks and writes about, but what really convinced me upon meeting him is his perfectly ordinary demeanor. he's just a guy traveling around to discuss what truly moves him with people interested in listening, but he's no superguru, no energy-blasting presence. he doesn't impose his amazingness on you, wear funny clothes to remind you of how special he is, or gut your soul of impurities with his penetrating spiritual gaze.

i think this is an important point, because you see plenty of people trying to use spirituality to make themselves anything but ordinary. if there's one distinguishing characteristic of the ego, it's that it will use any means available to make itself extraordinary and exceptional in some way - to see itself as separate, whether in a good or a bad light. this goes for the average gal or guy off the street, and it also goes for spiritually-identified people.

in spite of the labels the world pins on him ("spiritual teacher," "zen master," "successful author") Brad seems to be a legitimate embodiment of one who's perfectly content to be nothing more than an ordinary human roaming the planet; no better and no worse than the six billion-odd others who are pretty much up to the same thing, give or take a few specifics. and the way i see it, when you meet someone involved in talking about something like ultimate truth and they're truly making no effort to differentiate themselves from you or make you think they're special in any way, you can be pretty sure you're dealing with a high level of sincerity.

here's a quick summary of a few topics discussed during Brad's visit to the SAZ:

why do zazen? (i.e. why meditate?)
it's interesting to hear Brad assert that after decades of meditation, it's more difficult than ever for him to answer this question! i'm not sure exactly what he means by this, but i'm fairly sure he's not suggesting zazen (zen-style meditation) is worthless. i think he's trying to work against the idea of meditating as an action to achieve enlightenment, to suggest that the point of meditating is to meditate and we would do well to drop expectations.

instead of seeing it as an enlightment-generating exercise, Brad offers a more simple and practical reason to meditate. he compares it to brushing our teeth, something we normally do every day, although not for the reasons our dentist says we should (to keep our teeth clean, gums in shape, gingivitis at bay...). we do it because when we don't brush, our mouth tastes like crap. similarly, Brad offers, when we don't meditate we just don't feel right - something's off. meditation helps keep the mind less stinky.

is zen about enlightenment, or not?!
in my brief encounters with zen buddhism i've been interested by the play between the notions of "it's all about enlightenment" and "forget about enlightenment" (zen masters are famous for jamming up your mind-cogs by relentlessly throwing contradictions such as these at you). i ask Brad if he can speak about this.

his response is that many zen masters have been reluctant to speak about enlightenment, but that even the most reluctant ones, such as his own master Gudo Nishijima, do speak of it on occasion. the tricky thing with enlightenment is that most people inevitably dream up what they'd love for it to be and end up striving for something that doesn't even exist. given the propensity of spiritual seekers to form a distracting "enlightenment fantasy," the benefits of deconstructing this process or stopping it in its tracks are obvious.

in Brad's words: "if enlightenment is this state of perfection that you achieve where everything is cool forever, then i don't believe in that."

but there is such a thing as enlightenment, right?
this is my next question. while there are few things i could be more convinced of than the fact that a real shift in perspective from egocentricity to trans-egoic awareness can and does occur, i'm interested in hearing how the zen master will navigate his way out of this one - and besides, i could always be wrong!

"maybe..." he begins slowly, feeling uncomfortable, i imagine, with feeding unproductive desires. "there can be a shift... but it's not like anything ever changes. this is enlightenment, whether you notice it or not."

taking spiritual practice too seriously
Brad points out that by investing something with undue seriousness, we separate ourselves from it, make it into a "thing," divest it of its real power to transform our lives. (hopefully i'm not getting too carried away with my paraphrasing here.)

he brings up an interesting quote, from some zen master or another i believe, that i think is both funny and utterly true at the same time: "spiritual practice is too important to be taken seriously."

at the same time, he points out, having a sense of humor about spirituality is exactly what makes us sincerely serious about it, in the sense that we're truly devoted to it and not merely holding it up as sacred to use as material for self-aggrandizement. i agree completely; the highest respect we can pay to reality is to live our lives by it. if we do this, we have the right to joke about it because the playfulness emerges from a profound sense of love and appreciation, not disrespect.

stopping and listening

the process of awakening is actually quite simple: instead of dedicating all of your energy towards (creating, maintaining, evaluating, improving...) a mental conception of who you think you are or want to become, start paying attention to what you actually are. that's about all there is to be said about waking up: stop making noise and start listening.

the ego is what stands in the way of truth-realization, and thoughts pertaining to a mental image of self are what the ego is made of. as long as this mental idolatry is kept front and center stage, no room is left for real discovery.

one can read hundreds of books about enlightenment; meditate for decades; dip into innumerable practices, disciplines and philosophies; discuss spirituality constantly... but none of this guarantees anything at all. none of this produces enlightenment, because waking up is not merely a matter of "putting in time" or "acting spiritual." (to be fair, however, engaging in a spiritual lifestyle does have the potential to create a favorable context for realization).

waking up involves separating awareness from ego: observing it from a detached perspective; realizing gradually its nature as an impersonal, mechanical process that doesn't represent an individual will or entity; disentangling, knot by knot, the sense of self from it.

but in reality nothing has to be done to wake up. something has to be stopped. the awareness of truth can only be postponed through concealing action - continual effort that obscures the otherwise self-evident truth. unceasing investment in ego is what keeps one separated from moment to moment from the awareness of what one truly is.

this is what needs to be stopped, and this stopping is the only work that can be done to wake up. truth cannot be "gotten" or brought about; its light dawns of its own accord when we cease to create the conditions that obscure it from awareness.

many forms of so-called spirituality involve brushing the ego up, smoothing it over - creating a prettier mental image of self. this may provide certain benefits, but ultimately, it's a step in the wrong direction. the truth can only be approached when the mental self-image is laid down, when awareness frees itself from the object of its fascination - the ego - and comes back to rest upon itself as untouched and unconditioned consciousness.

learning hurts

there seems to be a big tendency not only in spiritual circles but in all areas of life to strive for "optimal" states of experience. in spiritual life this takes the form of desiring blissful states of meditation, wanting to project a peaceful vibe, being continually tempted to introduce one's "uncommon" and presumably superior spiritual beliefs into the everyday marketplace of "common" ideas, and so on.

when something is elevated as superior above anything else you can be sure delusion is at work. if you sense a strong preference within you to avoid certain states and gravitate towards others (to cling stubbornly to one side of life, to a limited slice of experience), this probably means the things you're trying to avoid are exactly the things that need to be faced in order to come to a more realistic reckoning of yourself.

truth is all-encompassing, and what that means in relation to this discussion is that it can't be realized by turning a blind eye to the things you find most problematic in life. truth certainly isn't revealed if you dwell long enough on the things you find easiest; these are the things you don't need to work on, the things you've already figured out. it feels good to rest in these areas, but when we're ready for real growth to occur once again we have to set out on roads we haven't yet become familiar and comfortable with.

this is harder; it often hurts, and something within us (the inertial force of belief in personal selfhood) rails against it. idleness is the name of the game for ego: "let everything remain as it is. just keep doing the things you're doing now... and guess what? i'll even compromise: as long as you do the things i need you to, i'll let you believe anything at all you want to believe."

this broaches a tricky subject: "doing" vs. "not doing" in the context of awakening, or the idea that "change has to occur" vs. "nothing needs to change." in a sense, both are true: truth is already the case; nothing needs to be "done" or to "change" in order for it to be true, obviously. but in the context of the realization of this truth that is already true, something does need to be done; something most certainly must change. this "doing" and this "change" occur at levels that don't affect or bring about truth itself; the only impact they have is on a person's awareness of it.

so what needs to be done and what must be changed? to arrive at the unequivocal realization of truth, one must discard, in turn, each obstacle that separates one from this realization. what changes when this is achieved is one's comprehension of the reality of one's nature, and by extension the nature of all other beings, and by extension the nature of reality itself.

when this shift occurs, one can say without a sense of paradox that everything has changed and nothing has changed. truth was always there. it's been doing its thing long before buddha or anyone else came along and recognized the fact that it was staring them right in the face. so, nothing has changed. on the other hand, the experience of being completely lost in a delusional view of reality certainly differs from the experience of shedding this delusion - and this is a gradual process, despite sudden leaps that occur from time to time - and aligning oneself with how things actually are. so, everything changes.

but this is all quite irrelevant from the perspective of one who is still fighting the uphill battle of shedding the larger part of one's delusional views. what really matters at such a point is not to wonder about how far others have gotten, or how nice it must be for them to be where they are, but to look straight down at where one is and deal with the obstacle that sits right between one's eyes. life will let you know one way or another what that obstacle is, but it's important to remember that it won't always be something you'll be overjoyed to address. it's hard to approach the muck and gore of ego structure. since we're still identified with ego, seeing these things literally hurts because we think it reflects negatively upon us. learning and growth often hurt at the moment they're taking place, but if we're not willing to sacrifice our complacency we can't expect any real progress to occur.

to not do

the maladies of a life lived in ignorance of one's true nature are multifarious and pervasive, but no matter how many forms they take or how deeply they penetrate, the source is always the same: misplaced self-identification. there exists, therefore, only one solution (truth-realization) and one way to bring it about: to stop identifying with what one is not.

how does one do that? one doesn't. one DOESN'T identify. since identity is already self-complete, identifying is simply not necessary (not to mention severely problematic). the notion of "identifying with" points to the common misperception that identity is something that must be constructed and maintained, shaped and perfected over time. as if the reality of what we are were a matter of preference!

isn't it terribly obvious that our very existence is proof positive of a root identity that was always there, long before any of our coveted opinions and beliefs came along and took center stage in our life? when we were carefree infants rocking back in our crib and plopping our big toe in our mouth, were we in fact not real because we hadn't yet crafted a personality?

in reality, the truth of what we were then is just as true now (how could it be any other way?). one thing that has changed is the development between then and now of a particularly nasty little psychological parasite known as ego.

many analogies have already been used throughout history to illustrate the withdrawal of energy from identification in order to reveal identity. a good one is that of the twisted towel: imagine turning a towel in opposing directions from either end. we can picture it building up tension, getting increasingly constricted and tangled. we can now ask ourselves what it would take to let the towel unwind and return to its natural, smooth state. more tension? obviouisly not. not even additional twisting in the opposite direction is necessary. all that's called for is a simple release, and the situation resolves itself.

what's needed here is a letting go of the activity that got us all tangled up in the first place, and the situation will resolve itself. as complicated and hectic as our present situation may be, we can't expect some big, flashy miracle or act from god to get us out of this mess. the solution is utterly simple and unpretentious: we have to stop obsessing over what we want and don't want to be and start paying attention to what we are. the former is characterized by incessant thought streams and mind plotting; the latter involves the willingness to be silent and observant along with the humility to accept that reality may be completely unrelated to what we've always believed it to be. the transition is possible if we're ready to accept that identity must be discovered, not created.

no opposition, no battle, no victory

truth is all-inclusive. reality has no opposite. illusion can only be illusion.

no battle is possible between truth and falsity. the real needs no defending, no wining; it's already real.

the ebb and flow between "good" and "bad," "war" and "peace," "freedom" and "slavery" in human society only denotes the collective level of truth-awareness regarding the fundamental sameness of our true identity. acknowledging this reality gives rise to the natural and spontaneous expression of love, peace and happiness; ignoring it brings fear, conflict and suffering.

even in a world in the grip of ignorance, truth hasn't "lost" because it is utterly impossible for that which is real to be displaced by that which is not real. it hasn't "won" either - it simply remains true.

the "battle" between truth and falsity can only take place in the imagination of the human psyche. one can become more or less aware of truth, but reality remains intact in either case. if everyone knows it, it's true. if nobody does, it's still just as true.

on a societal level, a tremendous amount of energy is required to maintain the structures of ignorance in place. by contrast, truth will always remain true and emerges of its own once the mechanisms of resistance break down or are no longer seen as credible. as long as the machine is running smoothly and continuously, however, illusion can hold sway over the masses.

why not? as long as the reel is spinning, we can immerse ourselves in the movie and practically forget we're sitting in a dark room surrounded by a bunch of other people, silently staring up at a screen. but the mechanisms better work; if the sound fails, the projector breaks down or someone in the audience causes a commotion - the spell's broken.

similarly, a continuous process of distraction is required for that which is self-evident and true to remain out of human awareness. we can blame the abundance of distractions in society on "THEM" or we can blame it on human nature, but who cares where responsibility lies? to dwell on that is simply a waste of time.

the object here is not to hunt down whoever's responsible and make them pay. righteous indignation and the desire for vengeance are some of the ego's juiciest positionalities and only serve to further entrench us in unconscious reactivity and misery. playing the "victim" role is just another excuse to avoid responsibility and justify squandering our actual potential.

it's sufficient to realize that while one is presented with ample opportunities for distraction and idleness, the choice to bypass these convenient, familiar diversions and reach for what's eternally true is always available. the transition from a life of cyclical discontent to one grounded in fulfillment, peace and the simple joy of being is not only a real option but represents the natural state of existence.

when we're no longer enthralled by the pictures on the screen, a return to the awareness of truth is inevitable. one need not enter into battle with unreal projections because doing so merely keeps one entangled in them, endowing them with apparent validity. once they're recognized as illusory, there's obviously no need to oppose them.

indeed, fighting against illusion implies adherence to it, just as a man screaming "you're not real! i refuse to believe you're real!!" at a character on a movie screen suffers from a hallucination despite his resistance to it.

in this sense, what's conducive to the growth of spiritual awareness is not wining battles over the particulars of one's life - which at the time may seem real enough - by engaging in direct confrontation, but to rise above limitations, bringing about recontextualization and transcension through a simple yet powerful shift in perspective - a shift that takes place in and of itself when we cease to resist illusion and choose to be inspired by truth.

when death implies victory

the ego wants external things as part of an unconscious drive to fulfill its inherent sense of lack. this feeling of "not-enoughness" is intrinsic to the ego, which in essence can be defined as a mechanism designed to perpetuate the non-recognition of formlessness as true identity.

there's a funny paradox here. the ego knows it needs something - anything - to bring about completion, satisfaction, rest, and it seeks it out in as many varied ways as there are forms in the world. it projects its need to identify with things onto anything, big or small, that seems suitable at the time. it comes from the assumption that if you put enough pieces of the puzzle together, finally you'll arrive at a complete picture and be content.

the paradox is that the whole reason behind the ego's drive to complete or save itself is its very own existence; when the ego comes apart, completion is realized as the natural state of being.

usually, when an organism is sick beyond its ability to repair itself, potential solutions are available externally and if applied correctly have the power to bring about healing and a restoration to the normal balance of things. the inability to find and apply the necessary external remedy results in death, which in this context implies failure.

in the ego's case - if for analogy's sake we take it to be a self-perpetuating psychological organism - the situation is completely reversed: what keeps it alive is the very act of unsuccessfully seeking out and applying remedy after supposed remedy (some of which may provide a temporary sense of completion), when the only real solution (de-identification with form) would bring about its death - which in this case would imply victory!

the ego is just that: an unresolvable need to find something that doesn't exist, the process itself of reaching out for more regardless of what one has, of wanting something different regardless of what is. what the ego seeks cannot be found because it wants something external to identify with that will finally make it complete. this is obviously impossible! what one is is what one is; it's already the case and doesn't need to be pieced together, found, thought up or somehow manufactured (through a spiritual practice for example) to be made real.

it's possible to be unaware of this reality, and what precludes that awareness are none other than the continuous ego-processes: self-definition through identification with thought and emotion; reliving the past and projecting into the future as a form of self-seeking; chronic resistance to what is, regardless of what that may be.

coming back to the puzzle image, picture a child confused into believing that who she is lies fragmented somewhere among countless puzzle pieces scattered across her playroom floor. her sense of desperation grows as she draws from one puzzle set after another (all of which have been confused into an unrecognizable mess), never sure if she's pursuing the right image but, in her panic, too afraid to stop her mad grasping.

imagine the profound relief, peace and joy brought on by the sudden realization of the simple truth: "oh my god! i've been playing with toys all along! i am already here, regardless of what happens to these puzzle pieces. they are irrelevant to who i am." now that the puzzles are no longer invested with the absolute seriousness of representing who she is, the child can actually enjoy them as they were meant to be - as games meant to produce joy, not suffering.

this is why we often hear about the response to spiritual awakening being a great, incredulous laugh. wouldn't you respond similarly if you suddenly realized you'd been seeking your identity in puzzles - toys! - when in fact the truth of who you were was always complete, readily available, obvious and infinitely simpler than the illusion you'd fallen into?

can't get what you can’t not have

if you’re seeking final truth it’s critical to accept that what you have now – or more accurately, what you are – is exactly what you’re searching for.

the you you think you are is a fabrication, and what you truly are is what the you you think you are thinks it’s seeking. no matter what the invented you does, it remains a fabrication; and what you truly are remains immutably true. as you can see, ego seeking truth is as unresolvable a situation as a dog chasing its own tail.

illusion, no matter what its configuration, doesn’t yield reality. could anything you do in a dream make it become real? or change the fact that you’re actually snoring away in bed? illusion can neither add up to nor subtract from the truth; it can only act as a distraction.

adding to and modifying your dream character will only result in… additions and modifications to your dream character. a legitimate activity in and of itself, but it won’t produce enlightenment.

so how do you realize truth? by ceasing to chase its conceptual mirage through the dreamscape and allowing it to sink in of its own accord through non-identification with everything you aren’t – which, until the spark of unmistakable recognition sets flame to the bonds of illusion, includes everything you think you are.

love already understands

it's common knowledge that spiritual aspirants often confuse the quest for enlightenment as a drive to obtain and assimilate new information. spiritual awakening is actually a process of simplification. it involves the removal of obstacles, which take the form of beliefs about reality. information and beliefs are not inherently the enemy, but in the context of awakening they keep us separated from truth because they distract us from direct experience.

once the process of simplification reaches a point where there are no longer enough obstacles to eclipse the light of truth, realization occurs and understanding dawns in a natural way. information that was previously studied and incomprehensible is seen in a new light. from the previous standpoint, it was simply beyond reach, just as one can't see the contours of a forest when immersed within it no matter how hard one tries. the attempt to comprehend enlightenment intellectually is merely a diversionary tactic of the ego.

if one wants to emerge from the forest, one has to start walking up the mountain. it doesn't help to sit there under the trees and wonder about what the view's like from the mountaintop, or to merely read about and discuss others' accounts of that perspective. one simply starts taking steps, and while the view at the top is breathtaking, the steps themselves are just steps; nothing spectacular.

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.

a few more notes on the ego

the ego's very foundation and means of continuance is the belief in the possibility of a separate, self-contained status. it isolates itself from its context and fails to acknowledge that its existence is wholly dependent on factors that are 100% impersonal.

the ego represents an imaginary boundary. it sits poised between seemingly separate internal and external worlds (only from its arbitrary viewpoint is division perceived) and falsely claims exclusivity over its illusory domain.

it claims authorship and ownership over things that it doesn't - and can't - create or own. this occurs predominantly with thoughts, which the ego is no more responsible for than it is for the functioning of the body at a cellular level.

spiritual ideals don't negate the authenticity of the ego as a final reality merely to be able to state that "there is no truth." obviously, there is a truth. the ego could never exist in the first place if it weren't for the reality of an underlying presence that confuses itself for the object of its focus, feeding the ego's momentum.

to illustrate this last point, plato's cave parable is useful. in it, chained prisoners rendered completely immobile mistakenly believe that they are their own shadows, which are projected on a wall in front of them. their shadows are the most readily apparent aspect of their existence; thus, instead of looking further for subtler existential truths and eventually arriving at the more difficult yet realer aspect of their existance as physical bodies, they devote all of their attention to these projections and remain ignorant to the truth.

similarly, the ego is a projection made possible by our true identity. the event wherein all outward projection temporarily ceases and a turning back of awareness upon itself occurs is what's called self-realization.

truth-concealer

the ego is nothing more than a grouping of memories, imaginings and expectations that we erroneously identify as the complete and final truth of what we are. the truth of being is always there, waiting and obvious.

the difficulty in recognizing our true identity lies in the fact that we're too distracted to be able to notice it. our attention is single-heartedly devoted to this collection of thoughts called the ego.

for spiritual purposes, perhaps the single most important fact about the ego is that it requires constant maintenance in order to maintain its pseudo-existence. when we impartially observe the mind's output without consciously adding to it, the ego begins losing its inertial force.

this weakens it, messing up it's whole momentum and creating occasional gaps in mentation. the ego dies in the spaces between thoughts. it needs a constant stream of noise in order to cover the underlying truth and successfully distract us from self-realization.

the sole function of the ego is to distract us from the truth. it makes a lot of commotion, arresting our attention. in contrast, the base of truth is ever-present, silent and unmoving. it's hard to identify because there's no background or context against which it can be picked out; it is the context. that's also what makes it so incredibly obvious once recognized.

the ego has taken so many forms throughout our lives. identities shift on a whim, especially at young ages. entire segments of the ego are lost, edited and added on a continual basis.

the truth is the one thing that's been equally present in each instance of our existence. though it may be obvious and simple, its realization is unspeakably life-altering. the positive change it entails cannot be adequately described because language itself parts from the false assumption of deleniation, limitation.

complicated?

what's more complicated? maintaining a secret or allowing the truth to reveal itself?

and when the secret is about something really obvious? it's really hard, isn't it? you have to take huge measures to hide it from awareness.

finding out the truth about life, about who you are, isn't complicated. because it's the truth. truth is self-revealing.

what's complicated is maintaining a constant resistance to the true nature of reality, which speaks to you through every sight, sound, touch, thought, feeling...

true spirituality isn't inherently tied to any religion or culture. it's a movement towards simplicity (truth) and away from complexity (resistance to truth, or the upholding of a lie).

only the truth can be the truth. it always was, is and will be. when you thought it was something else, it was what it was. when you discover it, it will have been there all along.

spinning stories

we have an instinctive, or perhaps a very deep culturally embedded need to tell ourselves stories.

stories can be problematic inasmuch as they’re used to supplant our direct perception of reality. they can be helpful when used to point to the truth. they can be entertaining and seen as a beautiful form of expression when recognized simply as fictions.

but most of the time, we use the technique of storytelling to support our personal and collective spins on reality. we have to continually reinforce these subjective interpretations because they have no inherent reality of their own.

a larger percentage than we might imagine of the interaction that takes place between individuals on a day to day basis consists of collectively adding energy to everything from individual life-stories to more encompassing stories about the human condition.

transmitting

when you sense the ever-present and unchanging truth of what you are beneath the superficial roles you've created and cramped yourself into throughout your life (or at least tried to), there's no problem with playing one role or another because you no longer confuse them for the truth.

as your sense of identity becomes increasingly rooted in the indefinable, experiential truth of what you are, roles simply become roles and there's no fear of becoming something you don't want to become or failing to become something you want to become.

you are what you are, and can be nothing else. this isn’t a limitation; it’s a blessing.

when all your energy isn't bound up by the effort of transmitting the person you think you are or want to be to yourself and others, and as you deepen into the truth of what you are, the natural result is that you begin transmitting love.

you get no thing out of it

what do you get from enlightenment? not a thing. you realize the truth of what you are and life just goes on as always. you still have to eat, sleep, pay your bills... and here's what we really don't want to hear: you still have to face difficult and challenging events in your life.

of course your approach towards everything changes drastically, but it's not that you suddenly become exempt from all the "bad" things in life and live the remainder of your days in a state of blissful apathy towards the world.

the only difference is that through all of the ordinary aspects of life – including times of discomfort, confusion and pain – the essence of being is continually present, and helpless despair is no longer an inseparable aspect of suffering. you become rooted in an unshakable peace that remains even when things on the surface get hectic.

our true nature is why we suffer

strangely enough, what causes all the unnecessary suffering in our lives is the fact that we are our true nature and can be nothing else.

the rejection of this truth, the impossible and fruitless effort to artificially fit what we are into the narrow confines of a mind-made identity causes an inevitable type of discomfort.

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.

it's neither one choice nor the other

we’re convinced that through the right choices we’ll get freedom or enlightenment to come about. we think that one choice or another will get us closer or further away from the truth.

all our choices do is generate certain results. truth cannot be generated, and choices have no influence on the truth, don't make it more or less true.

regardless of the choices we make and the results our choices generate, truth remains intact. how funny to think that a simple choice could have the power of creating or erasing the basic truth of what we are!