I’ve been marginally absent of late, in comparison to my more regular posting a while back. I took a leave from posting often and regularly to take some time to delve more deeply into some previously uncharted water in terms of my personal experience. During this time, I wrote an “Ultimate Guide To Mindfulness Meditation” for a website called Total Wellness Club which you can see by clicking here. And during this time, I have also begun writing in a journal. It’s a great way to hash out your thoughts and process ideas and such. That’s an integral part of enabling your mind to be more of a meadow than a minefield in my experience. It enables things to run smoothly and become less hazardous. Below, I’ve written up some of the more transcendental entries into my journal for you guys to peruse and hopefully make use of.

Entry: “A Sensational God”

I remember a time in my school days when a guy – like many kids at that age – was going through a phase of using one word more heavily than others. There was one day when I ran into this kid. Now, I dunno if he was high or what but he was running around touching everything (walls, tables, chairs, peoples arms and hair) and he was saying, “That’s a sensation” as he touched whatever it was in that moment. “Sensation” – that was the word he had taken a liking to. Everything, to him in that moment, was a “sensation”.

ebb5132c944d5215d0356ec0ff0f11b6A sensation. “What is a sensation defined by?” I found myself asking this just now. I don’t know whether this kid from my school had just realised the meaning of the word or if he was so high that he didn’t know what he was actually doing. Maybe he just wasn’t sure and he was subsequently going around looking for confirmation, “That’s a sensation?” In any case, a sensation – we could say – is a sensory experience which leads to an emotion.

A lot of times, I hear the phrase “God is in everything”. If God is in everything, then what are these things? Vessels for God and not God? Words – while limiting – carry a great symbolism. So when we say, “God is in all things,” are we implying that God is not the ‘things’ that God is stated to be within? What then are these “things”, if not God too? Is God not these things too?

It would follow then that if God is within all things and is too the things that God exists within then perhaps a more apt choice of words would be, “God is all things”. But then this calls forward the question, “Is God not also the non-sensational and non-phenomenal?” By which I mean, “If God is what we call “things” and exists within these “things” but is not a “thing”, then is God also not the absence of “things”?” “If God is within and is, in turn, all form, then is God not the formless too?”

In which case, a more apt choice of words would perhaps be, “God simply is”. Which comes with its own set of questions and qualms. This directs me to the notion that while words chosen carefully are important, the words we use – as well as the words we do not use – are both God. As is the space between each word and letter. As well as the empty pages onto which writing is scrawled.

God is in all things. God is all things. God is in all – formless and form alike. God is and God is not. Yet, all is God. While all is and is not is, what is and is not is as much God as what is not and is.

Entry: “A Godly Perspective”

There is a lot of talk of God having a perspective lately. Now, if God has a perspective then God would have to exist as a separate entity – separate from “creation”. This notion does not harmonise with the common belief that “oneness is the fundamental and absolute truth of the universe”. I don’t believe in absolute truth personally. It is my experience, however, that beyond the changing impermanent world, there is an unchanging and consistent formlessness within and without which all exists (and simultaneously does not exist). simba

The idea of perspective implies preference and opinion, both of which are characteristically human traits. So, “Man made God in his image.” In order for God to have a perspective – and thus a personality of its own – then, it/he/she would have to exist outside of or separate from all that is. And we know that personalities are things that we develop as a result of having a human life and a human ego. All this is to say that this “God” that has it’s own perspective would not actually be the God that is omnipresence because it would be bound to one body and one position. Otherwise it would see everything, know everything, feel everything and so on and thus would revert to being opinion-less and self-less (without a self/persona). So the only way we could have an omnipresence God and a God with preferences, opinions and so on would be to have “God 1” and “God 2”.

God 1 would be everything – form and formless alike – it would be omnipresence, allowing, flowing and “loving” based on a human perspective. Then God 2 would be “God’s Ego” and the consequent identity. God 2 would be like a brooding step-parent. That might be the jealous God that we talk about. Which is a wonderful construct – a wonderful invention and control mechanism – but it doesn’t make sense. Especially when you see, “God is all-loving, all-knowing” on one line and then “he is a jealous god” in the next. That’s insane. Some humans have even grown out of envy, why is God still feeding that green monster? “He is all-loving, all knowing””But he really hates homosexuals, liars, thieves, murders, prostitutes and politicians.” Insane.

“Man made God in his image.” – Eckhart Tolle

Entry: “Talking In Silence”

We accumulate forms upon forms in our lives. Physical forms in the way of possessions which we use to reinforce mental forms. And mental forms which cloud our judgement of “what is”. So on, so on.

Rarely do we look at experiences the way we look at babies. Not often enough do we look at babies the way we look at trees – in pure observational awareness. Looking at a child and wanting it to be a little more this or that is about as insane as looking at a tree and wanting it to be a little less tree. The tree is a tree and that’s that. The baby is, and that’s that. Experiences are the same.

356c8d24c086019f9c375038d1f0467bI was given the opportunity to meet a baby over Skype recently. When I was introduced, this beautiful baby girl (eight months old) and I just enjoyed each others presence for a while. Our silent recognition lasted longer than the length of time it is usually socially acceptable to sit in total silence with a grin on your face. The silence was immeasurably serene.

Since moving to Mexico, through the lack of alternative options, my default way to greet others has become one of either very few words or total silence. A smile and a light bow, a handshake or a loose hug and a kiss on the cheek perhaps, but few spoken words if any at all. In so doing, what I am bringing to the environment is little more than my presence. Which is a good thing when we consider that our modern society has an obsession with the accumulation of forms. This accumulation of forms has never led any of its participants to sustainable unconditional happiness. Nor has it been able to really alleviate suffering.

I don’t remember ever hearing anybody in the modern world saying, “This is enough. I need nothing more.” And if it is said, it’s likely quickly followed by ifs, buts or actions which contradict the statement. “This is enough. I need nothing more… But I’d like it if I could have a big-mac, chicken nuggets, large fries, apple pie, a diet coke… Oh and something to fill the gaping void of spiritual emptiness inside me, if you’ve got it?” This is why, for me, my practice is to let go of the illusions as soon as I become aware of them and am able to let go of them. To become free of the “clinging of mind” and the clutter it brings. But, with that said, it is also an exercise in not clinging to letting go of the clinging of the mind.

I trust this has served you well. Please feel free to leave any thoughts in the comments. I’ll reply to any non-spammy ones.

Keep it real.

Live, love and play.

Namaste.

-A-

Advertisements