MYTHS OF PERSPECTIVE, SELF AND IDENTITY

The problem is always, for myself, perhaps for everyone, lack of perspective, which may be seen as lack of context. For we are not consistent beings, but move, even in our sense and view of ourselves, from moment to moment, thought to thought, feeling to feeling. We are peripheral beings, always just at the edge of our own sight, even elusive, though it is never so obvious as that. I assume that others are as unlocatable to themselves as I am to myself, though most never give themselves a thought in this regard, being satisfied to identify themselves with the contemporary surface social and generational current. I do this only to the extent that I expect myself to survive; I do not identify with it or hardly even with its world. 

Just in saying that I have in many respects rather identified myself as one not to be so identified. I am that I am not that I am that I am not. A tautology, a loop looping on itself repeatedly over and over. Such is my sense of humor. And so I once again identify myself. Any reference to "oneself" is a self-identity. Zen practice may eventually lead to a profound sense of non-identity, which is to say, no-self. Which is problematic, for if one no longer thinks of oneself, one ceases to exist. This was precisely the reason I stopped my Zen practice a while ago, however, even after stopping, my self-identity never returned, so recently I started practicing once again. The only real difference is that now I consider my "Zen naps" to be integral to the meditation, which is much more amenable to the situation in which I am present to myself. Words, words, yes, but not balderdash. Everything eventually becomes strangely real even as it is strangely unreal. It may be that one realizes no judgement is to be made; no decision either way, but simply a recognition. And that doesn't even have to imply acceptance, though I think one must be willing to recognize, and such willingness seems to require an acceptance of what is there even as one is not yet aware of what it is or that one has even seen it. An almost pre-conscious acceptance or accepting state of mind. I choose the best words that reveal themselves, and words are deficient.

So in truth, there is always a lack of perspective, which is a matter of degree, yes, but to be human is to lack perspective. And also the fact that we are as moving targets engaged in the process to trying to hit moving targets, though even that metaphor is lacking since proper adjustments can be made so that moving targets can hit moving targets. But what if such moving targets are moving randomly in both space and time? Will a thousand monkeys on typewriters typing actually type the Encyclopedia Britannica in eternity? Monkeys and typewriters are not eternal. What is possible? What are the chances? And so we have "God" and "miracles." I have too often seen miracles as "anomalies." But I have accepted anomalies as miracles and vice-versa. I do believe in what is called Magic and especially Magick. All things may happen. All may be possible. God? Devil? Sympathetic or Unsympathetic, it doesn't quite matter to me. Greater gods, lesser gods, demons, no such powers at all? There is a mockingbird singing amazingly in the tree outside. I'm in this body sitting here doing this typing on this planet in this solar system in this moment, aware as an atom of dust in the universe. Good or bad?

BELIEF AND SELF-IDENTITY AND GROUP

We put ourselves together in different ways, accordingly to our particular needs, perhaps even style. Those who formally believe in God find themselves as members of a group who believes in some way similarly. Those who do not believe in such a way find themselves more singular and independently-minded, as it were. The non-believers have more of an independent self-identity, even if they are only defined by their refusal to join the believers. However these days, both believers and non-believers feel they are in the minority and shunned by the other.

Psychologically, the believers may possess a strong self-identity as a part of the group of believers. But the non-believers may even possess a stronger self-identity as individuals who do not possess the safety of the group-belief. I myself have believed but found that I inherently did not trust the group and could not entrust my own beliefs to those of the group or of its spokesperson or leader. I was forced to follow my own path; sometimes I believed on my own, sometimes I did not. Finally I chose a path of belief that did not believe and in which each person was responsible for discovering and following his or her own way. There were no priests to tell people what to think.

But I now find that belief is not the issue; one, follows one's path that one chooses to follow or not. The issue--and the problem--is the group, the congregation, the sangha, the belonging. One's own thinking is molded by the group. Of course, if we are a part of society, and society within a culture, our thinking has already been quite molded. And those of us who are within families have already been familiarized by and with the rules and roles we believe ourselves to be. So my little diatribe about "the group" is essentially insignificant--except that there are some people who eventually come to question rules and roles and much of which they believe and "know." Such people may be believers or not, but probably mostly not, unless of course they recreate that which they believe out of themselves, that is, their own minds and hearts, in an understanding that much of their own minds and hearts have already been quite established socially and culturally, and that they are barely scratching the surface for the most part, though they may find themselves plummeting down the rabbit-hole or stepping through the looking-glass. Now does that happen because of them or because it just does? Uh-Oh, we wonder back to belief vs. non-belief. I don't think it's one or the other; I think it is both. I think we both believe and do not believe, that existence is both heaven and hell, if you will. I do not believe in "the straight and narrow way" or really even the "middle way." I do not believe human beings are "middling" creatures but that we want to experience all and know all and be all, especially when we are young and not quite fully "adulterated" as yet. Such is the story of my life anyway. Perhaps there are many who are suppressed and molded by belief when they are young, which molds them tightly and repressively. But, from certain religious perspectives, life is only a preparation for death and the spiritual life, the real existence. I have believed such in my life and have even pretended that this physical existence is not even real but illusory, which I even still espouse at times. But it should only be espoused by old people like myself, whose youth came and lasted but eventually left. We psychologically prepare ourselves for death by taking on beliefs the encompass such notions as "the great afterlife." I do believe in reincarnation, as it's called. It is perfectly logical to me in the same sense that life regenerates in new forms after it dies. Plus I was partly raised by a ghost, and remember many past lives more vividly than my high school graduation, which I don't remember whatsoever.

Now for a closing aphorism: 
Human beings are the only animals that pee in their pants.

The Scheme of Things?

For much of my life I have more or less believed in The Scheme of Things. Having been indoctrinated into Catholicism, the scheme was God and also The Mystery of God. Over time, especially as I "sat zazen" for many, many years, the scheme became Greater Context. The word "scheme" implies something planned, something intended, rather than simply just what happens. So the word itself has implications of which I am quite unsure and which I find myself questioning. I have a thought: The road we make is the road we take. The Scheme of Things implies that it is all God's Scheme of Things, which does not resonate with me at all. For all I know it could be true, but even if it is, it is far, far too simplistic and rather too stupid. I do believe in Fate but also in myself as integral to my own fate. Krishnamurti said that we make our own path with each step we take. But then, with all due respect Mr. K, we also greatly tend to follow the path of least resistance, which is to say, of least thought. We tend to be herd animals with herd instinct and we head to the great sociocultural barn. If we are sheep, we are shorn, castrated and eventually eaten. If we are cows, our horns may be capped as well. Now for an aside: I recently went to the meat counter at the Piggly Market and was waited upon by a butcher who had just been cutting meat off a carcass. She, the butcher, had a big tattoo on her forearm of a diagram of a cow with all of its particular "cuts" lined out in the picture. I told her, pointing to the tattoo, "That's perfect." She said, "Yes, and I use it too." I knew this blog had a direction.

So I do still tend to believe in a Greater Context, though no longer The Greater Context. I question just about everything I think too frequently, including my thinking it and my questioning. It's as though I see right through my whole rational for thinking it before I think it. I see right through myself and the rationale for my own being. Yet I am right here in this body on this planet in this solar system typing away as if I had something to say that should be said. The only real solace is that I am writing this to a "world out there" that is not really there at all, even though we all believe it is there because we can see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, and so on. As I observe myself in this world in this moment of history, I shake my head in judgment of the absurdity which appears to prevail, wondering why, at the same time, why it is that I seem to focus on the insanity rather than the sanity, which also prevails in its own underlying way. I also largely wonder about my own impending death which follows like clockwork my own strange but true, fascinating, ridiculous but true, life.

I used to believe very much that it's obvious that we are born again into new bodies with new lives. We are big walking, talking worms, or radishes. I find it strange but true that I have to eat food and eliminate it daily every day of my life. That I find this so odd seems to imply that I remember NOT being in a flesh-form, as it were. In fact I do and I also specifically remember many previous lives but not when I actually "got on the wheel," as they say. Living in this world is most interesting and not so hard if you know what the state of things is, but knowing the state of reality is the life-long challenge. Not only knowing but accepting, which is actually even more essential than knowing. 

But I don't like the notion of "the scheme of things," since I don't believe that such a thing is conscious or known by any "entity" whatsoever. But I suppose I'll keep it as title to the blog even though it is very misleading. A very few people actually DO read this blog; I believe in quality, not quantity. If something I say resonates and helps someone to feel a momentary sanity or even just an associated disassociation, that's a good thing. It seems that we are driven to find at least a thread to lead us out of the labyrinth. Speaking of that, I published a few books from my own Ariadne Press, though I am most certainly no writer. This blog just kind of seeps out, but I do trust the spring from which it flows. I must. I thank you for reading this, my friend.

Moments In Time Out of Time

Writing for more than oneself, as one must do in a blog, at least one that can be understood, requires that one explain what is being written. Thus it is different than how one writes for oneself. I find that writing a blog accesses or taps parts of myself not necessarily accessed when I write just for myself. Having to explain myself is challenging since it requires that I more or less know why I am writing what I'm writing, which is often rather unknown to me. 

When I had stronger beliefs as well as more of a self-identity, there was a greater ability to explain what I was thinking. But now my beliefs are quite different and much less defined, and I myself am much less defined to myself as well. I practiced zazen for many years, which had the effect of unraveling my own sense of self and self-identity, which is actually part of its purpose, which is pretty much the exact opposite of the overpowering quest for creating a strong self-identity in this culture. There have been times in my life in which I did create a relatively strong self-identity, though I always did maintain that it was more of a role I played in society, the world, out of necessity. My nature is more one of invisibility. And this is probably because in the unraveling of the reality of my version of myself, the veneer, the truth of the persona, gradually faded away to the point of even vanishing. This rather frightened me; I began to think that the zazen had become a kind of self-hypnosis in which everything, including myself, ceased to exist--being illusory in itself. So I stopped practicing zazen at least a year ago.

But over time I found myself drifting away from the state of mind I had when I practiced zazen. I still "observed" my thoughts and objective life, but there was a kind of dullness of mind that became obvious to me. With zazen, one's notion of oneself definitely shifts and one can "vanish," which kind of feels like being a ghost of yourself going through the motions of life and survival. But that may be partly because I did not participate in a sangha, that is, the Buddhist community, preferring to practice on my own. I should add that I am engaged in the living of my life and fulfilling my various family responsibilities, so I am not disengaged or particularly isolated or alone.

So I have begun "sitting" once again. It is different now. I fall into sleep and I dream very short dreams before awakening again. I fought this when it used to happen, but I am now paying more attention to the dreams, not exactly interpreting them but looking at them, even feeling them. Today I found myself standing in a forest and surrounded by tall trees, one right next to me. Suddenly a large squirrel with long fur the color of gold jumps up onto the trunk of the tree right next to me, stopping at my eye level and touching my shoulder, looking into my eyes for a split second before running up the tree. It was delightful. Yesterday I was walking in the forest nearby and, perhaps thirty feet in front of me, a stag came onto the path, stopped, and looked directly at me. I stopped and looked at him. Our eyes locked into each other's gaze for maybe twenty seconds before he went into the brush. We took each other in. We communicated. 

This all relates to finding "a place to breathe within the scheme of things," the theme of this blog. 

Breathing Within the Scheme of Things

To breathe within the scheme of things was the focus of a blog I once wrote before deciding to move on to "metaphysics." To be able to breathe has again become my simple focus. There is probably much more to being but if one cannot exist within the greater context as oneself, that is, if one cannot breathe, one cannot be. Metaphysics is a matter of understanding oneself; breathing is a matter of being, of simply existing. Once one can breathe, then one may take on understanding. I may have learned to breathe and then moved on to understanding, but then it just may be something shifted somewhere, somehow to some kind of a new paradigm of being in which even a new kind of breathing comes into being, as it were. Perhaps it is simply a result of getting on in the body and mind; when balance and relationships within oneself change, the whole context of being shifts. I see how and why I decided to focus on the metaphysics, for I have already delved into what could be interpreted as a metaphysical discussion. However, I think the theme is no longer that of Giving Meaning to Ourselves, for such is taken for granted by me at this point. To be able to breathe is to give such meaning.