Honouring Negative Experiences and the Realness of the Illusion

In order that what I'm saying in this post would make sense, one needs to know what I mean by illusion versus reality. You need to postulate, that ultimately human beings are not just limited physical beings, but limitless beings of love. Limited existance here on Earth would thus be a sort of illusion. A lot of people tend to dismiss experience on this level as "only illusion", however. I rather promote a paradox which allows for this reality to hold a quality of "reality" as well. Really what I mean is that they are two sides of the same coin. I can't go into that in detail now since I have other things in mind, but this is the starting point.

Most people really want to live in lala-land. Which is perfectly understandable, since no one wants to suffer. While poverty and misery may help some in understanding deeper truths about life, it's not a virtue and really causes more negativity in the world. The well-to-do don't always realize it just as they don't realize a lot of things that compromises their comfort in the present moment, but their reluctance to take action to help change things will eventually creep up on them. Well, in many countries the rich are already living in their highly protected residences and the nature of the problem is pretty obvious to the onlooker, however in the Nordic countries this scenario hasn't quite hit home yet.

The smorgasbord kind of religion or spirituality that the New Age is, is particularly attractive to the Western middle class. The reasons are surely obvious; these people have the luxury to sit and ponder the meaning of their individual success on all levels of life and have the means to do research in order to find the particular tailored spiritual brand that suits them the best. They have the money to participate in all kinds of specialized workshops and seminars. Because their lives are already reasonably affluent, they can imagine a sort of paradise on Earth rather than in the after life. There's nothing wrong with all this, but we need to keep Maslow's hierarchy of needs in mind. There are plenty of people who don't have access to this sort of spirituality. They are stuck in the kind that is offered by their particular environment and limited to spending only a minimal amount of time and energy to pondering the deeper meaning of their belief system. They usually also don't have the education to understand the value of questioning social and/or religious authorities. I'm only saying this because it's easy to forget the 90% of the population who are really poor and unpriviliged. If you don't belong to this group, you tend not to want to know about it, because it's a threat to a sense of security that may nontheless not have much basis in reality. I'm not saying that there aren't some New Agey sort of people who have a real grip on things and also find a sense of security in an honest and true relationship with the "higher dimensions" or Source or whatever you wish to call it. However, I'm not so sure there are that many. Most people are really just enclosed in their safeguarded residences where they can share their visions as well as illusions with likeminded people.

Who am I to make this sort of judgment call? Well, one reason is that there have been very few people who have been able to make a real difference in my own life. I've had to find out the hard way that most people around really are very "middle class" regardless whether they are ordinary agnostics-or-atheist-or-passive Christians or "consciously spiritual"-or-New Age-or-Buddhist - these are the groups that I've been in touch with personally so I won't venture to talk about people with other forms of belief systems. It means that in general they love the comfy clichés and stereotypes that they can resort to in order to make it seem as if life is under control. Of course, clichés exist because there's a hint of truth in them, albeit they have frozen into a mold that is applied on all and sundry. These people love handing out advice about other people's attitudes, because that way they feel that they are under no obligation to actually do anything concrete. Whether people like to preach about a subjective form of spirituality according to which people have only their own bad attitude to blame for their misery or whether they just like to blame others in general, the burden of other people's suffering is always pushed away from themselves. They don't want to get their hands dirty so by talking about "attitude" rather than real life problems, they can live with the illusion that they are doing something good in the world. Of course, not all people are only doing this, some actually do also act on occasion. But in that case it's mostly for money. Few want to risk their sense of physical security.

What I'm describing here is really quite a nice life, and it allows for plenty of theories that continue to keep the illusions going. For instance, people love Tolle's "Power of Now". While what he presents are old viewpoints that have been said many times before, it's really quite a comfortable attitude that can lull you into believing that no concrete action needs to be taken. And I also wonder how to tell this attitude apart from the hedonistic attitude about living the here and now without concern for consequences? While I can sense the difference, I wonder if everyone can. Self-help authors usually become popular only if they offer a confirmation that a comfortable life style really is quite okay and you don't really need to sacrifice any of it for other people. So where does it leave us? Well, people may be finding personal fulfillment but how long does it last? If people were really present in the Now they wouldn't look to 2012 for changes, but act on the problems that exist right now. Again I'm sure there are people who understand all this, I'm just worried about the others... and I'm also concerned that narcissism is getting the better of people.

In reality, not many are there for other people. Even mother Theresa is said to have been a fake. It's amazing how many people buy into the myth about her without questioning whether it's true or not. So you only have yourself in the end. I know, it sounds like a cliché. But what I want to say is that the image people have of the sole survivor and the strong individual who survives all of life's adversities like a true hero is bullshit. People just don't want to look at misery and acknowledge that not all endings are happy endings. If they did, the illusion about their own comfort would be challenged. Now I personally don't want to watch movies that have unhappy endings, it really is distressing. So I understand this tendency in human beings. Problems arise when denial is on all the time and people can't really tell fiction from reality. Of course, the more overwhelming misery in the world is getting, the more people will want to be in denial. All this is normal but problematic nonetheless. One does wonder if this particular nightmare will ever end?

What is the cure for this state of affairs? Some would say "ascension" and I can't really rebuke that in any way. I just think it's a bit funny that some wait for divine intervention while they cross their hands. Whatever the case may be, it seems to me there really is only one way of really getting in touch with reality, and that is learning about life the hard way. As a spiritual person, you may think that you understand the deeper issues of life and understand that this 3D reality is not "reality" but an illusion, however only when they get so painful and tormenting that you can absolutely not doubt their realness, then you actually learn something. Understanding that life without love is an illusion is one thing, but seeing that its opposite is every bit as real is in my opinion to have a real understanding of things. As I have always pleaded, it's about paradoxes. You can't sit in your residence like an armchair philosopher and understand what life is really about by thinking about it only. It just doesn't work. Of course love is important, but I see it more as a complement rather than a cure-all (strategy and action "male style" is every bit as valid in this reality as the exchange of positive vibes "female style"). So even if you know that what you're going through is an illusion (and really you're bloody fortunate if you do), if it doesn't feel absolutely real all the same you are not "getting it". When I realized this I understood why all my negative feelings are valid. They are the simple result of the fact that one's life's struggle appears so very freaking real that one feesl like killing oneself (not saying I will but only that the deeper into the "illusion" you go, the more it hurts and the more you want out of it at any price). You get that close to self-destruction not because you are living a negative illusion of life, but because it torments and haunts you more than anything you could ever imagine in an armchair in a comfortable residence or a totally different dimension. Honouring the fact that your spirit has agreed to limit itself so much that this experience has become possible is surely the first step towards a really useful enlightenment. And who knows, many an "enlightened" spirit may be walking around without having any means of proving that they actually are. While we do need to strive towards a happier outlook on life, the experience of many negative feelings may sometimes be a doorway to a deeper understanding of the problems that other people are experiencing. If nothing else, it helps you take action rather than remain a dull preacher. And of course, ultimately an experience is just an experience. What's the use of hell if nobody goes there, eh? ;-)

Artwork: Digital photograph by author, all rights reserved 2009

Some Definitions on Mysticism

I took part in a discussion about mysticism and threw in a few things out of my memory. It's been a while (ten years) so I need to read up a little and think some more, but for now, some of the things I brought out in answer to some questions.

For one thing, mysticism isn't a science but the study of mysticism is because it attempts to collect evidence, resort to empirical studies, define and categorize. It's thus as much a strand of science as psychology is. As for the experiences of mystical nature, yes they are basically either of a dualist or oneness nature, however "Oneness" is generally considered a more desirable AND higher state of consciousness on the ladder of consciousness expansion. Whether these are true or not is of course impossible to determine for sure as they can only be of a subjective nature but there are some contemporary writers who have done a good job in defining these things.

It may also be useful to think of mysticism as esoteric as opposed to exoteric. Esoteric is the practice of spirituality/religion that looks inwards for the answers and experiences, whereas exoteric is the opposite. Most traditional forms of relgion are of course exoteric as they rely a lot on a dualistic approach to some form of God or Gods and also rituals such as various forms of sacrifice. In short I don't see there is much one can argue about when it comes to mysticism!

This reminds me of the Taoist idea that you cannot speak of that which cannot be spoken of. As soon as you try, it no longer is the ineffable. The whole point with a real mystical experience seems to me to be to transcend words, since words rely on a dualist experience of reality. The experience of the underlying oneness of all things is the "goal" or point. On another note, not that many people have really been there and if they have, it's usually been really shortlived. What the future hold is another story though. Who knows what will become accessible to consciousness when evolution (the evolution of conciousness in this case) takes us further?

There are apparently many ways of conceiving dualism but I'm referring to the idea of yin and yang. In my "simple" world there is high and low, light and dark, happy and sad, etc... classic examples of the play of opposites in a dualist world. We tend to choose sides, take a stand for one thing and shun its opposites. I find this working fairly well in my day-to-day experiences and attempts to understand how humans act, for instance. Understanding life as a paradox where you attempt to join these together in a both-and kind of thinking rather than the adverse either-or. It's not, according the Buddhist philospher Nagarjuna, the ultimate answer to the ineffable, but closer to the understanding and hopefully consequent experience of oneness. A real life-changning mystical experience would of course be something akin to enlightenment, but it doesn't (as far as I understand) guarantee that life be free of conflicts caused by life in a dualist world.

However, even if things are not complete extremes but rather somewhere on a gray scale, it doesn't mean they would not be situated opposite of each other. In terms of psychology, which I know best, it seems to me that people do drift into extremes before they "come to" and realize that change has to be made. Or then change just happens, I don't know but I actually think we are less in charge than we believe. This would be a bit like the Hegelian idea of thesis-antithesis=synthesis. This kind of dialectic process would eventually lead to a higher state of consciuosness where the sense of self would be dissolved without getting lost. The sense of self gets lost if you are mentally ill and lose yourself in psychosis, for instance. I'm not a fan of Western thinking so I personally prefer the Buddhist idea that the sense of self is ultimately an illusion and so one can actually have an experience in which the illusion disappears from consciousness. There are some researchers of consciousness who promptly deny this sort of possibility but many who are acquainted with the Asian way of looking at it don't see it as impossible. My own experience of meditation is that you have an object to focus on for a while (it could actually be music, it works really well) and that focus then brings about a more expansive and profound experience of one's own being. I suspect that's a preliminary to a mystical experience.

Take a cat (because I have three of them): are they thinking? In my opinion they are pretty highly evolved beings and decision makers, but they don't have language. So they have I suppose all these images and impressions in their minds, and they are also able to remember things for various lengths of time. There's a lot going on there but they are still way more present in the now than we are, because we rely on language to entertain us about the past and the future. Perhaps a cat already is a mystic? They certainly have no trouble feeling connected to life in every way (unless of course their psyche's been badly damaged). Or can only humans who are able to transcend language, be potential mystics? These are questions that are surely almost impossible to answer.I wouldn't say Buddhists are agnostics. They have a hell of a lot of beliefs about other dimensions... No one ever claimed there is no God, only that it's ineffable and so in my opinion they are careful about defining it.

As for the Supreme Consciousness, well Oneness implies that it's everywhere. In a sense it's "underlying" all of creation and pervading it yet that's just a way of trying to explain it semantically that obviously doesn't catch the "overall" character of that Supreme "something". Here is where paradox would again enter the scene because Oneness is One AND duality at the same time. It's just us who cannot conceive of such great things who call these things such and such... whereas I'm sure that from some more enlightened point of view there is no problem. Why I'm sure? Uh, just what I believe :-). I do think the inner knowing about the state of affairs that is not tied to language is possible but it does require language to step aside. That's the difference between traditional prayer and meditation; in prayer you talk a lot! In meditation you attempt to bypass the alluring nature of blahblahblah that ties you to the timeline. Time, of course, being yet another illusion that we already know is not a "palpable thing" but a phenomenon relative to objects in space: time seems to take us from a to b but in fact, there are incidents where time is not an issue regarding our experience of reality. One case is that of psychological experiences that may be as vivid now as they were 30 years ago. It seems to me that there is yet another fundamental paradox related to the fact that time is an illusion and everything is available in the now, and our experience of evolution and a timeline. There are in fact many things we already take for granted as part of our day-to-day lives yet we find hard to explain. I personally don't understand how I can talk from one mobile phone to another, lol! Why would the idea of various states of consciousness meet with such resistance then? As you say, even coma is a state of consciousness. They say the person in question may even be aware of what is going on. Ah, so little we know yet!

Artwork: "Between Heaven and Earth", artwork by author, all rights reserved 1998

Look Beyond Dualism

Ok, so where was I again... my previous blog was about conflicting choices. I mean, come on, who seriously wants a knife on the throat and an ominous voice interrogating you about your deeper desires: "Do you wish to live in a modern apartment in a downtown area or in a big manor house in the countryside?!" Eeeek! Heck do I know! I want both... and besides, it all depends, you know... like contemporary modern in a brand new house, modern minimalist, modern taken from "Living Etc" design magazine, or just an old apartment but nicely updated with smart solutions and sleek furbishing? And is the manor house perfectly renovated or falling apart... does it have grounds to go with it... is it in Lapland or in Sussex... Anyway, I don't want to answer that kind of question!

People seriously believe that you have to choose between two things. Otherwise they wouldn't create tests like that that accompany such big, money making sites. And life certainly does often present us with difficult choices. Should I leave him or should I stay? Should I write my book or should I avoid it for yet another day? Should I brush my cat and make him hate me or should I just leave him as he is and have all his love for me instead? And so on... you know how it is. Decisions... hard to think at times. Especially when you haven't slept well and you have no one to ask for help.

Yes, we do live in a dualist world. There are extremes and we tend to move back and forth like pendulums. Sometimes we stick to an extreme for ages. But just like the yin/yang symbol, the extreme will eventually change shape. No one knows when or where. But it will happen. Because this, as far as I understand it, is the basic nature of change. And without change there is no evolution. When thesis meets anti-thesis, we get synthesis. Check out the philospher Hegel for more in-depth views on this concept.

I just did another test online. This one was about how to train yourself to see auras. The idea of the most important exercise was to have two figures become one. To me, this actually exemplifies an attitude to life that can be developed and mastered. How can we start to understand reality as being One? In some way, it seems as tricky and incomprehensible as seeing auras if you don't have a natural knack for it. There are excellent books to study, for instance those that promote integral philosphy. In the hope of highlighting this topic a little I will quote some of my own musings. For more, see my early blogs. When I have time, I will also look for other material that I haven't posted yet.

***
"If you don't understand the idea of paradoxes as the basic nature of reality, then you don't know the abc of life. Any talk of oneness is useless if this is the case. Try and think in terms of "both-and" rather than "either-or", and see what happens!"
***
"The point about the paradox as a rule of thumb in one's life: moderation is simply the way in which we can gain the balance between extreme ways and attitudes. When you're able to see the truth of two opposites and inhabit the space between them, you are getting somewhere! Compare this with the Hegelian idea of thesis contra anti-thesis and the birth of the third conjoint force, the antithesis. This would be applicable to any level of life."

***

"The Taoists spoke of that which you cannot name, for as soon as you do, you are no longer speaking of 'it'. Ah, I love their sense of paradoxes! That to me is where we get closer to the real essence of 'this thing called God' (said with a smile). To me, talk about God promptly sucks me right into the issue of dualism, where opposites reign. Ok, so we live in a dualist world where contrasts provide experience (it's hard to appreciate good if you do not know of evil etc.). To me the Almighty is "above" these constellations. Note, however, that even the word "above" creates a dualist constellation but what can you do?! Language is this way! In fact I'd rather refer to "it" as 'Spirit', 'the Source' or 'the One'. 'The Universe' is okay too in some instances when you want to stress the interaction between the parts of the space we inhabit and bring God into it all. I guess humans need to talk in terms of God being this or that but my hunch is, we're all a bit off course because we're using words invented by humans. All in all I think that the word God carries too many heavy connotations no matter what the intention behind using it is."

***
"People who live with a fundamentally dualistic worldview simply cannot concieve of a world where paradoxes are closer to the truth than an either-or constellation. It's terrible how facts can be twisted so easily, well; that's why religion is such a terribly controversial subject of course. That makes me more pessimistic than the idea of Lucifer and his gang... If only people could see that everything we do and project and attract stems from our own minds, but how do you teach people like this that sort of thing? Not that there's a lack of information, only a lack of willingness to broaden the perspective and get out of the box of conventions."

***

"I know this sounds confusing but I'll give it a shot: The whole concept of saving or rescuing others or the world implies dualist thinking and especially a case of hierarchy. Somebody or something has to be higher on a ladder of sorts in order to "save" someone or something. Contrary to many, I don't think it's up to us to save anything at all since that would give us a lot of power within the framework of dualism. I think our small selves are less in charge of anything than we think. I think that only that which is in touch with Oneness can "save" anything, though it wouldn't really be 'saving' at all. It would just BECOME. I think that when we're in touch with Oneness our small selves are no longer ruling. We can then speak of our 'higher selves' being in charge. This is why it's tricky when people talk of being guided to say things to others. There is no way of being really sure that the source of information truly is from a higher aspect of ourselves or from somewhere else. Making assumptions about others is simply not respectful, and it can never be spiritual to want to make yourself appear higher on a ladder than someone else. It seems to me that only very few beings are enlightened enough to see the totality of what a person is all about."

Artwork: "The Veil", digital photograph by author, all rights reserved 2008

What God is All About

I noticed my mind has been wandering in circles a bit because I haven't had the energy to participate in any discussions and I don't read books anymore. So in order to broaden my scope a little I made an effort to put my mind into a couple of issues presented on group discussions (note, ones devoid of any very personal feelings and experiences!). Here is something I said regarding the fact that many still today like to talk in terms of God when they address a higher power, and that this God has attributes such as kindness and love. As those who have read my previous blogs know, I don't think like this and I only confess to using the term when exclaiming "OMG" or pleaing, "Please God help me...". Anyway, this is what I said in answer to the fact that maybe God is beyond attributes made up of the limited human mind with its even more limited repertoir of expressions:

"I was not raised a Christian though I belong to the Lutheran Church (I simply have no greater reason for leaving though I think I would if I had to pay taxes :-/), and so I do not have "God" in my semantic repertoir the way many others have. I've been in touch with Americans a lot and many like to talk in terms of God even when they mean an intangible entity. The Taoists spoke of that which you cannot name, for as soon as you do, you are no longer speaking of "it". Ah, I love their sense of paradoxes! That to me is where we get closer to the real essence of "this thing called God" (said with a smile). To me, talk about God promptly brings me into the issue of dualism, where opposites reign. Ok, we live in a dualist world where contrasts provide experience (it's hard to appreciate good if you do not know of evil etc.). To me the Almighty is "above" these constellations (note that even the word "above" creates a dualist constellation but what can you do?!). In fact I'd rather refer to "it" as "the Source" or "the One". "The Universe" is okay too in some instances when you want to stress the interaction between the parts of the space we inhabit and bring God into it all. I guess humans need to talk in terms of God being this or that but my hunch is, we're all a bit off course because we're using words invented by humans. Well, all in all I think that the word God carries too many heavy connotations no matter what the intention behind using it is.

Well... maybe /the idea that God can be unlimited and limited at the same time/ is a mystery only if you want it to be. If you study old Asian thinking (esp. the philosopher Nagarjuna), you stumble upon the idea of paradoxes as fundamental to the ontological ("beingness") status of reality. They are not the ultimate truth but lead you in a direction traditional Western thinking is not used to going. In my mind, it's only the mind that's so stuck in thinking in dualist terms. It finds it very hard to imagine anything as being both-and. But try it, practice, and maybe it gets easier... I see this as being the future of human kind. That way we might start reconciliating many issues that now seem impossible to reconciliate... It seems fairly obvious to me by know who studied the issue thoroughly enough but I understand that for many it's really mindblowing! And it probably is a mystery."

*****

Today I received the newsletter from a spiritual site that I quite like despite the fact that God is a frequently used denomination. I presume that's because it's mostly American. I thought this quote might bring some hope of a spiritual nature to those who feel the heaviness that is lingering above us all like a dark blanket. Some challenges are for a good reason. This is from Julie Redstone at www.worldblessings.net. She suggests that strength of heart is particularly important at this time of challenges:

"Some souls are carrying the belief that surrendering to God's will produces harmony and perfection, and when they give their lives over to the divine are shocked when unanticipated challenges manifest in their life. These brave and devoted souls are expecting more immediate rewards, and may be unprepared for the process of purification and for the lessons of non-attachment that come their way. Yes, harmony and peace are the results of a life devoted to God's purpose; however the day to day outcome manifests and flows in its own timing and in God's timing which has its own divine wisdom and purpose that often the embodied soul cannot see. A willingness to rest in the unknown, and to continually return to God's heart despite whatever events, emotions or challenges may come, will provide a steady, sure anchor during times of changes."

Artwork: "Evolution", digital photograph by author, all rights reserved 2008

The Paradox of the Moths Attracted To the Light

I'm not sure I will be able to make sense in this line of thoughts, but I will try... The subject is a complicated one, and my brain may well prove to be too small to express what I feel.

In my opinion, moralist creeds of a Victorian kind are of a lower level on the evolutionary ladder (a friend pointed this out and I whole heartedly agree!). On the contrary, speaking the truth the way it is (though without any kind of manipulative intent) is of a higher order. I also think that if you do speak your mind in a straightforward sense without assertiveness, you might still be looked upon with the evil eye by those who adhere to a more moralist, law abiding way that likes to apply rules and not freedom of speech. I think this happens to some people, and it is not a funny constellation for either party. Of course, no one can help that they are at a certain point in their own evolution, and so each should be met with due respect. Easier said than done, however! I find, that sometimes resorting to strong words is the only way of being heard and gaining respect when in conflict with strangers in daily life. It is deplorable, but is there any other way? Of course, one could try sending love to the enemies, but truth to say not many of us have it in us all the time...

Observe, that I am not advocating immoral behaviour or that we should not respect social laws. I am only saying, that there are areas that are ambiguous (such as religion and texts related to them) that can be interpreted in various ways, and so a very rigorous fundamentalist approach to such creeds is truly dated and obviously not a working concept in the modern world! I venture to suggest that rituals and formulae belong to a lower level of existence and don't matter in the higher dimensions where the consciousness of only very few human beings reside. I leave it up to each and everyone to ponder the meaning of this statement.

Some terminology before I go on: by evolution I mean the development of the individual as well as the collective consciousness. By frequency I mean what colloquially speaking people mean when they talk about being on a certain wavelength. This is connected to the point at which a person is on their own evolutionary ladder. By dimension I mean steps on the evolutionary ladder, almost interchangeable with frequency. These dimensions are represented in our body by energy centres or vortexes of energy, commonly called chakras.

I think we live in a time that is very trying on us and so occasional lack of motivation, apathy and even depression is to be expected. Some of it may be due to a kind of hibernation in which the mind and the body allow for changes to occur in the unconscious parts of the self. Some of it may simply be sensitivity to all the heavy issues that are being dealt with on the collective level. Some agree with me that there is something like a suffocating blanket of darkness arisen from a process of purification of the collective mind. I do see and sense a lot of processing going on among people in the media. I do believe this will amount to a transition of the general level of understanding and insight, but as in all processes of change, both joy and suffering is present.

I've been having problems with the beginnings of an ulcer, and it's very obvious that it has a lot to do with being dependent on other people's decision making and how they distribute money to me that is rightfully mine. A big issue is the feeling that people don't see or hear my needs, but impose their own view of who I am and what my problems are in an assertive way. Another issue is disappointments in regard to friends who seem to care less than what I'd expect from a friend. The standard answer would be to let go of expectations and whishes, and not allow yourself to feel like a victim. Well, I'd say that is easier said than done! However, I've heard that abdominal problems do occur on a large scale among sensitive people right now, and so I feel quite confident that it is also a matter of picking up collective issues. It's also tough to be sensitive and see such a lack of altruism in this world, and this must surely affect our emotional self. In addition, the evolutionary transition or shift is now supposed to arise from the dimension represented by of our third energy center (the solar plexus) to the energy center of the heart (the 4th chakra/energy level). So, is pain in the solar plexus area and maybe lower too as many also struggle with second level issues, really all that surprising?

I want to point out, that in no way do I feel truly powerless. I feel powerful beyond measure, but somewhat powerless within the confines of the reality that my persona has to endure. That is but a part of me, however. I am not speaking of mental division such as schizophrenia, but a deeper sense of not identifying all that much with the smaller self.

I ran into a question today though, and am still not sure how to tackle it. I read, once more, how we should embrace the qualities of people who annoy us and not only love them, but see them as part of ourselves. Of course, we are a collective entity and so individual separation is ultimately an illusion. Now I've been very much into shadow work so the idea of people projecting onto others what they don't want to see in themselves is not foreign to me at all. However recently, I've started to feel completely incapable of looking inside for resonance with people around me who create disturbance. It's as if somewhere inside, I feel I've had enough of that and that it's time to see people for what and who they are and stop taking on part of their issues. Why must I always take the blame for everything that is going on in my life? Maybe some things just are the way they are regardless whether my consciousness is there or not, and so the crap that I happen to recieve is arbitrary in the sense that the target could be anyone, but I happen to react to it where someone else wouldn't say a word or think twice about it. I am trying to say, that things are so many faceted, that saying that there is always a clear one-to-one relationship between you and something bad that's going on is simplistic. I mean, a person might be born to face a war, which is perhaps part of his or her life's purpose. On the other hand, the war might be a side line where something else is a more important reason for this person to be born at that particular time. In the end I'm sure all these issues are intertwined, but perhaps not always quite as we think. What people think usually has very little to do with the truth.

In a way, if you accept what wrong others are doing, surely you are then sliding into their frequencies? These might be lower than where you want to be. I was quite surprised that this particular person whose view point I am referring to and who is an authority in this field, was advocating "the embrace" and at the same time saying that lower and higher frequencies cannot exist in the same place. To me this sounds very contradictory. I understand that we are all one and so in a sense acceptance is a valid and even necessary attitude. But on the other hand, do all of us really have to do shadow work (looking inside to see what in ourselves matches the external reality) for the rest of our lives? She seems to be saying that on the one hand we have to co-exist, but on the other we don't have to. Get my meaning?

Could it be that some of us just have to take a lot of crap because the world is now in a state of chaos and people who represent "higher" values (by this I mean that they have a more spiritual and above all, broader, frame of mind) attract more narrow minded humans who are possibly a bit like moths attracted to the light? After all, forerunners and prophets have always been spat on or adored in an obsessive way. Or is there a third alternative, a paradox, where both viewpoints are true, and how in this case does it manifest? This is, after all, a dual reality, and in order for anything to move forward in an evolutionary (developmental) way, opposites must be joined together. I keep hearing proposals of a new reality that is very much caught in an either-or constellation. So maybe my question is not so much whether those lacking in light are attracted to those who are able to manifest the light or whether some who manifest a lot of light attract negative things because they fail to shine all the light they really are. Maybe it's rather, what is the way in which one can accept a conflicting constellation based in dualism and transcend it? I have been thinking about this for so long, yet all I hear within myself is: "just relax into life the way you know how to!"

Artwork: "Emotions 3/6", handmade collage by author, all rights reserved 2003

Questioning Automatic Beliefs

It's good to determine the semantic distinctions between words or expressions such as "judging" and "being judgmental", "having opinions" and "being opiniated", and a host of other subtle nuances. First, we need to establish whether we are talking about the same thing. I am bringing this up so as to highlight the theme of this blog. This is the fact that we take many words and expressions for granted instead of questioning them and making sure that we know exactly what we are talking about, and that we are all implying the same thing when we are talking about matters that matter... Again and again, I encounter this problem online.

One thing in particular I'd like for people to question is why exactly everybody should be treated equally? People assume it's that way, because they have been taught it's the moral way to be. However it's seldom being put into practice in the world as we know it today. It seems to me, that this belief or assumption requires a really deeper resonance in people before things can really start to change and the world become a better place for everybody. In fact automatic beliefsystems are in the way of more creative and heartfelt insights regarding the deeper truths in life.

If we feel a need to judge others, which sometimes is hard to avoid, maybe we could at least try to keep it as objective as possible and avoid going into the judging process so wholeheartedly. A judging statement is just another opinion of our mind and a product of dualist thinking (one thing is inferior to another). If only we could challenge each other gently, not so harshly that all the automatic defense-mechanisms get started. There is no point in being mean. But being passive is not a form of love either!Seeing personality (or individuality, which is perhaps a step further in the evolutionary hierarchy) as a form of beauty is helpful to me. Even though many of us believe that we are all one at a deeper level, it is not exactly what is being expressed on this level of reality. What we see here on Earth is usually the differentiation rather than the underlying Oneness, in other words the fact that each soul has developed its own individuality and has a sense of self that is completely unique. Surely this development is one of the points of evolution? The One divides into fragments that all have a personal point of view... Thus we are One but Many at the same time.

My motto has been to get away from a thinking in terms of "either-or" and instead embrace the profound and mysterious paradox of "both-and". As the Buddhist philospher Nagarjuna pointed out, even that is not an expression of the ultimate truth as he saw it, and I believe that too. But it's a step forward, an exercise for the mind. Can we perceive each other as both one with us and separate individuals?I don't think there's anything wrong with opinions, they make the world go around. But ultimately, it's maybe a question of challenging one's automatic beliefs and figuring out ways of opening the heart a bit more? Many times I have thought; "what's the bloody use"? But throughout my life I've trusted that the meaningfulness of it all will show spontaneously if I manage to open up my channels even more.

Artwork: "Why?", collage on paper by author, copyright 2008