Teaching, Life, and the Potential of Love

My approach to "teaching " is founded in living life as example and sharing life as it is lived, day to day. This no doubt has arisen, in part, from my having written the Rule for the Religious Community my partner and I founded.

Writing a Religious Community Rule is very much different than composing spiritual prose or doctrine. It has to be more than words, because these are words that need to be lived out. While I followed loosely the Rule of St. Benedict , and a style suggested by "Rule for a new Brother ", by Rogel voor een nieuwe broder of the Brackkenstine Community of Blessed Sacrament Fathers, Holland, much of the Rule was based on my life together with my Partner.

Our life together had involved middle class beginnings, but quickly found us living in less than modest surroundings. Our downtown Tenderloin experiences however, became a classroom of acceptance and sacrifice. Prior to that, both my Partner and I had experienced youthful years of Psychiatric treatment and torment. By the time it came to write the rule, much life had passed this way.

I was not so much concerned in the Rule in shaping another's spirituality, but to shape a life around which the spirit could shape it's own way. "Meetings", and meals were set aside as places to "communicate". Meetings based on a little bit of "group therapy" in a "family meeting" kind of setting. Quite sharing during meals. These all need to be part of Community where Brothers and Sisters can not only get along in Joy, but grow in spirit.

Spirituality is a very personal thing. It is the great recognition of Oneness. There is nothing more "personal " or "universal " that that. But earnestness, devotion and Love call for a life, not just for some "space" to be made in it. This is why I teach. Not that I posses a great secret, though I might. Not that I am "realized ", though I might be. But because I call you to a life. Not an idea, a philosophy or a religion, but a life. It involves eating sandwiches and talking on the phone. It involves sitting up with sick parents and children, and cleaning up puke and urine. It involves becoming lost in a child's laugh and the best sunset of your life. It is life, and it giggles through the tears.

That's what I "teach". After 44 years with one Partner, years of psychiatric inquiry, bubbles of magic "happenings " enchanting my life on a regular basis, I feel called to "teach ", "teach" that; life is what there is, in all it's wonders and sadness. I was reminded by a cloud, like a thoughtfully silly child, that I am Love. My whole "purpose " is to tell you that. I can not explain this to you, as it is beyond words, and you know all this stuff anyway.

All I can do is live my life before you. Knowing I am watched, I must accept the pains and joys and fail again and again. For I am no example if I only win. Our life may not seem like a satsang or spiritual gathering on the surface, but it is. Every smile, gesture, sigh or tear is an expression of the One; the Love that we live in. When our lives become a continual gesture of worship, devotion, and silence, the ground is prepared for the growth of potential; the potential of Love.

Peace

A Lovely Bear

In this hot weather in New Mexico, I am remembering a cool Winter spent in London, and the reactions of a small boy in Harrods's Department Store.

Visiting Harrods's for the first time, being me, I wanted to see the Toy Dept. It was the Holiday Season, and the store was fully decorated, especially the Toy Dept. While I was getting lost in the fascinating displays, a boy, about 8 to 10 years old was coming along with his father. We were in the stuffed animal section of the Dept, and all at once the boy exclaimed "Oh daddy, what a lovely bear! "

Having been in London for only a few days, the accent grabbed at me of course. But the sincerity and absolute love in that voice was startling. First, no boy in America, even back in the 1970's, would have called anything "lovely ", and in particular, a stuffed bear. While I accepted this difference, I was unable to let it go without examination. A American boy, in that age group exclaiming "Oh daddy, what a lovely bear", would attract all kinds of the wrong attention. A psychiatrist may be summoned. But that gets us off the point; freedom.

That boy was not thinking about what others (me) were analyzing about the situation. At 8 to 10 he was able to be free enough to exclaim, to his dad no less, a lovely bear. This may seem a small thing, but it's the biggest thing there is!

This is what is meant by "becoming " as a child. Although, in this case, it was simply giving in to a recognized but diminishing force. Opening up, being free and open is so much more comforting than hiding. There were times in my life where a "lovely bear " would have been much more comfort than a baseball. But boys in my time hid their old bears and monkeys from one another, just as we often keep secrets apart from loved ones. To finally open up our tender heart, not only showing the "lovely bear ", but our love for it, willingly accepting what may come next, is to open that door, closed for so long.

"Oh daddy, what a lovely bear!" Oh daddy, what a lovely world!" To openly, not only say this, but proclaim it, is the very essence of freedom. Shout it like a three year old, or an 8 to 10 year old who is sure of who he is!

Peace

Phantoms

I have always liked the word Phantom. The Dictionary defines Phantom as something apparent to sense, but with no substantial existence. That's really fabulous; something of the senses, but no substance. I appear as a phantom in a phantom world. Again, amazing, but what about it ?

The senses themselves, by this definition, have no substance either; being only sensors of that which is without substance. That seems to give them some kind of value, if not substance. Value without substance; an interesting combination of words, that upon examination, run through the mind like water through the fingers.

We have taken these senses; these channels of feeling that, by this definition, give birth toappearance, which has no substantial existence, and concentrated all our attention on them. We center the feelings; the senses themselves in what we falsely perceive as the "I am ". This is what we come to accept as the limited little "I ". Senses become "My feelings ". Thoughts become "My thoughts ", and the projection of "others " is "sensed ", along with the projected "me ". Phantoms.

We are all Phantoms here; apparent to sense, but with no substantial existence. You can touch me. I can touch you. That, in itself, is wonderful. Fabulous, even, but there's more! The Phantoms rise up out of the substantial ! Clearly the substantial cannot rise up from the insubstantial! The insubstantial, the illusion, the Phantom, arises from the substantial.

It is part of the Great Paradox that, that which is substantial is also not definable. This nebulous stillness upon which all this plays out, is life itself, nothing else. The child's smile, the elder's cry; all play out against this stillness I call Love. Call it what you will; The Absolute, "God", Pure Awareness, it does not matter what brings you to the understanding of our wonderful "Phantomness ".

As Phantoms we have little, or no input into the play of life, save maybe a little "style" or panache. We can either surrender or resist. Resistance is futile, surrender is imminent. But there is nothing wrong in reveling in our "phantomness". I guess that's "what about it?" You can touch me. I can touch you.That, in itself, is wonderful!

Peace

An Exquisite Frustration.

Emotions are at least as much distrusted in non-dual conversation, as are thoughts. But these emotions that we can define, explain, and illustrate are also just more thoughts, only now attached to a "feeling " for further separation.

I think that emotions are one of the often misunderstood, but key elements in the "spiritual search ". Unfortunatley the "emotions " become something to "watch out " for, rather than something to experience. This is a grave mistake.

As one who experienced a good deal of psychiatric confusion as a kid, I learned to look closely at emotions and "feelings " as they arose, and arise. This had a strange "double " effect. While on the one hand, it separated me from my peers, I was able to understand why they acted as they did, and also why they reacted to me, in the way they did. Learning early on, how your behavior seems to affect others, and how it all stems from one source is a valuable lesson.

Emotions, like thoughts, are not separate from their source. The source of all "emotion", "spirit", "feeling" is in Love itself. Before I go on any further, let me express what I am calling "Love " here.

Love is not a "feeling ", but it is also. Love is not an "emotion ", but the emotion is in it. Love is all there is. Call it the Absolute, Enlightened Awareness, The One, but try not to call it "God ". For "God " is another image, concept, idea complete! While, "Love " is also a concept, it is a "nebulous " one.

This is why I am defining my concept of "Love ". Love is that which unfolds into life. An ever present stillness onto which life is projected and observed. Emotions, like thoughts, arise from that stillness. These thoughts, stored as memory, will repetedly play back if we allow them to. Otherwise there are only fresh thoughts, floating through, leaving no trace but the pleasure of observation. The same is true for emotion.

Memory thoughts can trigger "memory emotion ", a "reliving " of a past "experience ". These remembered emotions are as strong as the "original " emotions, and are "played back " as the same "feelings " as the "original ". These are the "emotions " we need to expose, understand and watch vanish.

As I have explained elsewhere in my Notes, all emotions, from the most sublime to the most base, arise in Love only, and are simply distorted and perverted by the desire to make a universal into a "personal ". Love is only what it is when it is not attached to a "person ", even "God ". Love as "spirit" is what we "are". The body/mind is simply Love's "expression ". The unfolding of Love itself not only creates both the body/mind to express love, but the "objects " of it's affection as well. There are no objects; no "things ", just the Love expressed through them.

Just as medieval man observed light to be a "physical " manifestation of spirit, so it is that Love is that same spirit, abiding as everything. Emotions, just like thoughts, arise from the core of the source, They are there, and they are real. While the ripples on the surface of the water, are a "temporary " manifestation, they are "real " while they have an appearance. We would be indeed foolish to ignore a "temporary " hurricane. To ignore a "temporary " emotion, may also be a rejection of what is.

Even in a "realized " person, there will arise the "feelings " of bodily dis-ease. Emotions, even expressed strongly, are no less a part of the sage, than any other body/mind. A sage is living in the heart, we can expect some emotion. Love will flow freely, but any blockages encountered, will be met with an equal determination. You can't stop a sage who comes at you with Love. He will steal your heart, and brake it simultaneously.

Just as we learn to navigate shallow waters by understanding the hidden rocks that make the waves appear in the first place, emotions guide us in a world of pure "feeling"; an understanding without "knowledge". You can't explain Love to me. Either my concept or your concept lose their meaning, as well they should. But we can "feel " Love. I can look at you and laugh. I can see the Love and joy in your eyes, but I can't explain it. It is an exquisite frustration.

Peace

The Call from Nothingness to Life

I was recently "unfriended " by someone who couldn't stop arguing over "nothingness ". It is astonishing how far some in the spiritual community will argue over "nothing ". This seems to be caused by a fear of becoming involved with life itself. "Nothingness " becomes a safe place to hide.

How does this come about ? The concept of "Neti, Neti ", not this, not this, is a beginning. The mind, not being able to land on anything solid after settling in the "I am ", starts thinking in negative terms. It tells us that the only way to describe "what is ", in thought and word, is in describing what it is not. This leaves a blank, a hole in thought that becomes described as nothingness.

Again, meditation, looked at as mental activity rather than an emptying, leads to negative thought. When one works at meditation, and achieves "success ", it is referred to as "stillness", "silence", "nothingness ". The "self ", the "world " all vanish into this silent stillness. The mind "stabilizes " in this silent stillness, and believes itself to be "aware", or "awakened ". This is a point where many stop the "search ". In this "state ", which is completely in the mind, the mind enjoys a "stillness " and "silence " that it creates out of it's view of those thoughts and words.

I was lucky to be introduced to contemplation before I ever got too far into meditation. In contemplation, the emphasis is on emptying. All words, thoughts and activity are rejected. Not to enter into some negative state, but to allow for an "infilling ". In contemplation, one is, in Christian terms, "waiting on the Lord " You are offering everything to the "unknown " in contemplation. You are not "seeking ". You are not imagining anything will "happen ". You are simply saying "Here I am, take me." You are giving up your life for the unknown. This takes incredible courage, and demands an incredible "call ".

While "everyone " eventually hears, and follows this "call ", most spiritual "seekers " remain in the imagined "silent stillness ". When someone, like the one who "unfriended " me, argues for this "silent stillness ", you know that they are "stuck " there, and no amount of reaching out in the dream will reach them, as they think they have "made it ". They take the "nothingness ", presented to and by the mind, as "enlightenment ".

Nisargadatta Maharaj, said that he saw he was nothing, and that was "wisdom ". Of course, that is "wisdom ", this "nothingness " we see is the end of the minds usefulness. "I am nothing", this is the minds "wisdom ". But this is only the start. Nisargadatta also said that when he saw he was "everything ", this was Love. This, seeing that we are "everything ", is what takes one beyond the mind. When the empty heart is "filled " with Love, there is no "vision ", no thought, no "words ". It just is.

Giving up the "search "; emptying out the mind of thoughts of "still silence ", as conceived by the mind, even giving up the thought of "Love " itself for the reality beyond words and mind is what is required. But fear of actually letting go is what keeps most "stuck" in the apparent, comfortable "still silence ". If you suggest, as life itself does, that there is more than this background of "still silence ", this Neti, Neti, this incomplete "enlightenment " that is seen by these fearful "seekers ", they will reject you, unfriend you, and say that you are the one who is "deluded ". They will only accept a total rejection of "everything " as their "reality ".

To be Love, this seeing oneself as "everything ", opens the world, others and yourself to what is. Not some negative "screen " upon which the "illusions " appear, but seeing the "illusions " themselves as part and parcel of the "screen ". Sure, you can say that the "illusions " are all in the "mind ". But the "mind " is also both an "illusion " and itself part and parcel of the "screen ". Non-duality can not admit an "illusion ", and a separate "screen ", and still remain "non-dual ". There is both "movement " and "stillness ". One can't be separated from the other, or one held to be "higher " or more perfect or "real " than the other.

It is time to call "seekers ", especially those who have had the incomplete "awakening " to "nothingness ", or "silent stillness ", back into life. Just as the Christ is described as being both "fully human" and fully "divine", Life is both illusory and real. We can not separate "temporary " from "eternal ", and remain outside of time; the great "illusion ". We have to dive deeply into paradox, and dare to "live" there. Not taking positions, choosing "real " (eternal), over "illusion " (temporary), but accepting all that is, as it unfolds in Love.

Peace

The Trouble with "God" - Revisited

I find it both amusing and strange that referencing the concept of "God " comes up in non-dual discussions so frequently. This concept seems to be so persistent that it takes on a life of it's own, even in supposed "non-dual " expression. The concept of an "individual self " seems easier to lose than this troublesome concept of "God ".

A friend and I, while in high school, had independently come upon the thinking behind Anselm'sOntological Argument , which we considered a "proof " for the existence of "God ", as did Anselm. This concept, as Anselm framed it, is that "God " is that, of which nothing greater can be conceived. I remember excitedly calling my philosophy teacher on a Saturday night to tell him the good news. After he explained that Anselm had already beaten us to the punch, I simply accepted this argument for decades.

I come from a Christian background, and one would think that this concept would be one that would persist, and it did, in my period of intellectual understanding. Initially, in the Christian sense, there developed the concept that "God " was "in" things, or everything was "part " of "God ." As more understanding took place, "God " was seen as "everything ". The sky is "God", the forest is "God", and so on.

After reading Ramakrishna, and then Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj, there developed an intellectual understanding of non-dual expression. But the concept of "God", finally seen as only a concept, was missed. My development from childhood had always seen that Love was the most important aspect of "God", and that aspect remained, both in my mind and in my heart. How could there be Love in non-duality; without subject and object; "God and myself " ?

As I have said before, after a heavy rain, in the beauty of the clouds, I was struck with the realization of the answer to that question. The only way I can explain that using the inadequacy of words, is to say I vanished. And along with me, the concept of "God " vanished. What was left was Love. Not "my" love, not "God's" love, but Love only. All personal identification ceased. While the body, mind, and personality appear to remain, the constant, abiding, reality is Love only.

This realization of Love, without the concept of "God " opened the door. "God " was no longer necessary, just as "I " was no longer necessary. After "stabilizing" in this for a decade, I was able to see that both "God " and myself are simply expressions of Love, the appearance of the body/mind and personality persisting as before, but now servants to Love only. I have tried ever since to proclaim that Love is your True nature.

This is why I find it so important not to look at "God " as anything but a concept. That is why I always try to put the term "God " in parenthesis'. I don't believe it. It is an expression only of the one Love. As to our "selves ", we can, at least reach the "I am ". The mind can go that far. But the concept of "God " is not even "demonstrable" to that degree, unless we wish to stop at Anselm's argument, which by it very words, is a concept. Only the heart can understand Love, as the heart "speaks" only in silence.

Robert Adams, the great American Jnani, felt that one was helped in the spiritual journey by seeing "God " in form, even though his understanding was similar to my own. He even felt that one could worship "God " in the guru. He felt that one could not build up a strong enough "love" for a formless "ideal ". Both Ramana Maharshi, and Nisargadatta Maharaj used the term "God " frequently. They used it in reference to the Absolute sometimes, and in reference to the "relative" at other times, which I feel is very confusing, if not misleading, as were Adams's views. Not wanting to pick a fight with some of non-dualities most revered teachers, I would still say that the understanding of Love, Loving itself, without the unnecessary baggage of an "I " or a "God " is vital to the understanding of Truth.

Peace

Love without Reward - The Dance itself!

I just read the statement "at some point all spiritual effort is rewarded." Again, that carrot being dangled out there. I suppose in a pay - off oriented society, that is what is sought; a reward. This is just simply not good enough.

Love is all there is. To use an old clichéd phrase; Love is it's own reward. And this is it, isn't it ? The search is not for something. There is no treasure to find that that is not already present. Wisdom, peace of mind, happiness, or whatever is sought as a "reward ", are not good enough.

What is sought is what calls. It is also the "journey " itself. Until it is realized (the Real manifest) that the "call ", the "seeker ", and the "path followed " are all the same Love playing out it's game with itself, the "journey " continues. After it is realized that this is simply a play of Love, the "journey" continues, until all is absorbed back into Love itself.

Love is calling, calling to itself. This is expressed in a wonderful manifestation, or a silent stillness depending on the "angle of view ". If Love itself is not leading back to itself, it is simply wandering, and it isn't Love, it's the minds idea of love. A mistaken identity. When a reward is sought, no matter how lofty, a possession is sought; a pay - off for imagined "efforts". This is self seeking; selfishness, and has nothing to do with Love.

Any "spiritual journey ", that is a true one, starts with a calling. It doesn't start with a desire to "fix " anything. Searches for happiness, peace of mind, wisdom or even understanding, are all reward oriented. Seeking understanding or relief of these things may be found in psychology, or even possibly religion, but that is not the purpose of spirituality. Spirituality has no purpose, it just is, and there is either a calling or not.

Spirituality is the circle of Love unfolding and Loving itself. The "call " is an invitation to join the dance,the dance itself being the call, and the called. If Love is offering it's invitation, it does not matter ifhappiness, peace of mind, wisdom or understanding are present or not. In fact the "call " can, and often does, come in the midst of unhappiness, a troubled mind, ignorance or lack of understanding. The invitation comes in spite of those things.

The invitation to the dance is not declinable. It may be resisted, resulting in much of the unhappiness, etc. mentioned above, but it cannot be ignored. Seeking a "reward " leads to an attempt to "crash the dance ". In fact, seeking a "reward " prevents the invitation from being sent in the first place. Perhaps a better way to put it, is that the attempt to crash the dance, causes the invitation to become overlooked.

All are invited to the dance. Overlooking the invitation by seeking a "reward ", we miss the dance itself.

Peace