The Door to the Kingdom

A Psycho-spiritual assessment of human experience - using subjective science (or put another way - a whole lengthy post to point out the most simple thing - too simple - let me entertain you.)

Everything is a process - one major process - being the evolution of consciousness.
This evolution is unfolding in the eternal now.

Quite literally and emphatically - there is no time - only the process.
When we observe a clock - we are watching a process, nothing else.


Photo courtesy slipperybrick.com

Time is purely and entirely a perception.

The human brain has evolved, as part of the evolution of consciousness - we have evidence of its past stages.
It has evolved to support the being, surviving in its environment, being shaped by the gradual understanding of this environment, in terms of sensory cues, spatial awareness, gradual development of subconscious instincts etc - obviously an enormously complex process, a miracle of nature, but nonetheless - a part of the one process.
Important to this discourse is the fact that the brain (and mind) have evolved entirely in response to environmental cues and as such are finely tuned for this purpose - observation and survival in our perceived surroundings.
The brain has evolved, incorporating this understanding within its very design - as such, if you like it is "forward facing" "outward facing" - a finely tuned partner in conjuction with the physical sense organs.

Quite naturally, born into a human body, we adapt ourselves entirely around the sense of reality inherently projected into the mind - a sense of reality that is 100% the result of interaction with the environment.
The structure of our logic, our rationale, our understanding of space, our conceptualisation - prismatically refracting one whole experience into a myriad of compartmentalised moments, events, objects, ideas, theories etc. - the whole gamut of life, of experience - as interpreted by the mind.

As a rule - we learn to live with this CPU of the brain interpreting everything for us - the experience we are given is entirely, lock stock and barrel - the consequence of the mind.
It is important to fully realise that our entire sense of reality is entirely projected into our awareness by the mind.
Reality, as we know it, as we are so comfortable inhabiting, that we take so much for granted - is only a perception.
Therefore our very own reality is only conditional - it is a condition of the mind - and that is the process of the mind, taking place every second, minute - every hour of our lives.


Photo courtesy blogs.discovermagazine.com

However - that very time itself is a projection of the mind - it is purely a perception.
The mind, as it were - smudges the "now" - it draws the experience of the "now" imperceptably into subtle memory, creating a sense of continuity. We could not possibly survive very efficiently without that process - it is where all the cues for continuity exist - in the process of "now" becoming progressively replaced by more experiences of the now.
The process that is happening is continuity of consciousness - from within that "now" - there is no other time.
Our memory is our previous "nows" - stored as memory, perceived as "nows" gone by - it is the process of memory that is all - and it is that process which creates the perception of time.
Time is only that perception - the future exists as a projection of memory - into a presumption of there being a future - simply because we have presumed a past. The whole concept of time as passing, or being linear - is entirely only a perception - a process of the mind.
However - it is an enormously strong perception - one that is entirely believable - is not our whole life ordered by this "imaginary" time?
Are we not convinced we have a tomorrow - when the process continues evolving - the earth in its orbital process around the sun - time is a product of awareness and the process of the mind.

The problem we have in even imagining around this state of "no time" - is that "time" - being a perception - contains the implication of observation - even in our imagination - abstract thought.
Observation implies awareness.
We cannot conceive of unconsciousness - we cannot possibly imagine it - because the very act of imagining can only occur through consciousness.
As conscious beings - it is utterly impossible.


Photo courtesy mi2g.com

Why is all this necessary as an explanation before the Door to the Kingdom?

OK - I firmly believe that our lives are influenced by the fundamental substance of our being.
We form values involving love, liberty, the value of human life - because these represent some of the attributes of our fundamental being.
We strive for that liberty, for that love and joy that our fundamental being knows for itself - and these are manifest into our physical existence - intertwined with time and space.

As a result of the process of the mind - our firm and established belief in time - we are often separated from the awareness of being - by absorption in the consequences of the mind. We will often miss the subtle experience for the less subtle.
The subtle experience is that of awareness itself - easily obliterated by the colourful & busy world of the mind.

One result of this is that we have substituted a limited, relative perception of reality for an awareness of the infinite - within our own being.
This awareness is born from the eternal now - and constantly floods into our being - potential experience becoming actual experience.
That potential itself - as explained - is not a consequence of the process of the mind - therefore there is no time for this potential - only process.
Potential without time is infinite, eternal.
Process without time is infinite.
I cannot stress enough - time does not exist other than as a perception - a process of the mind.

Please pause at this point to realise how even our language refers to our total belief in the presumption of time.
The very words I use here - "constantly" "becoming" - even "now" itself. "Now" is perceived to be no more than a window, a moment of passing time - as if it were sandwiched somehow between the "past" and the "future."

A part of the reality that we experience as a result of the process of the mind - is relativity - where objects appear to exist in separation - a consequence also of the process of individuation - being born as individuals.
A part of that reality is that we strongly identify with that individuality.
As far as we can instinctively perceive (through the process of the mind in its normal mode of operation) we are indeed separate - why should we not identify ourselves as this individual?
Why not indeed - perfectly natural - individuality is our vehicle for experience.

Part of the relativity is our system of values, judgements, discriminations, polarities, affiliations, likes, dislikes - the mind has prismatically refracted one whole experience into many - many opportunities for choice.
Another part is our conceptualisation of reality into ideas of things, separate things, applying labels, names - further segregation that has been useful in the evolution of our understanding.
These processes are those of logic, language, rational, intellect etc. all themselves attributes of the one potential - but shaped and primed from our "forward facing" attitude towards life. Forward facing and completely intertwined with the minds own projection of time. These are all essential processes of our evolution, but we have now come to a turning point.


Photo courtesy allposters.co.uk

To see beyond the mind.

We should start to consider, that perhaps this door (a metaphor, obviously - for we have very few words to use as signposts in the realm of the unknown) - perhaps this "door" is one that we already have stepped through, on our journey from childhood.
When we stepped out of the kingdom and learned to live more and more identifying only with the conceptual world of the mind.
As our physical stature grew - our kingdom started to shrink.
When our infinite world started to feel the pinch of definition.
We should think of this as the front door to the mind - the back door is the one facing outwards and forwards - through the senses.

Instinctively, and completely naturally - something that we entirely accept as intrinsic to our reality - is conditionality.
The way we perceive ourselves - our self awareness of ourselves - is conditioned by the process of the mind itself.
There is great wisdom in Judge not, lest ye be judged - it is the same value system that we apply to our environment that we apply to ourselves - our value system that has been moulded entirely by our perception of the physical world.
This gives us a very restricted vision of who we actually are - remember - our perception is our reality all the time we are interfacing with the CPU.
How can we observe ourselves without intercepting these limits, these conditions?

We import into our subtle but influential perception of ourselves, the "memory" of our physicality, endorsed by our sensory perception of our fellow human beings.
Our perception of ourselves is that we are restricted to the confines of a physical body.

Just to show you how crazy this can get - your perception of the top of your head - exists for you inside your head - where your awareness interfaces with the CPU.
Your perception of the soles of your feet exists inside your head.
Critically - your perception of inside your head - exists only as a perception - inside your head.
So - where is it really?

This awareness - this mind?

Observe - it can only be inside your head - if you remember your head - and presume.
It can only be inside your body - if you remember your body - and presume.
In fact - you cannot say "where it is" - you cannot confine yourself to a space at all.
Sense your being - feel it - become familiar with the dimensions.
How big - how small?
Unanswerable.
Where?
It is all over you - you are all over it - the same - we cannot relate our being to anything we have taught ourselves from merely observing the "physical world."
It is in a different realm - the kingdom.

When we close our eyes, all of a sudden - we project the perception that we are now "inside our head" somewhere - but all we have done is close our eyes.
We remember the perception of our head, or body - and presume the rest - based on the process of the mind.

I hope you are following this - it's all very practical - please try it.

In other words - eliminate the subtle but influential presumptions based on our "physical logic" - and we are in a completely unknown dimension.
Where is your mind?
All around you?
Can you hear it telling you who you are, who you think you are?
That is all presumption - perception - it is not as real as you may believe.


Something else that we import into our perception of ourselves is our projection of time, interpreting the process of life, of growing, physical change - as being "time based."
Convinced that we have a limited "time" - happiness becomes our treasure - reinforced by the pleasure principal itself - reinforced by our fundamental substance being attracted to joyful experiences - reinforced by nature's tendency for balance and harmony - happiness, contentment become permanent goals in our lives.
Some may balk at that idea, in denial - believing that some conceptualisation of altruistic value actually transcends this fact. That is probably a concept that is muddled by old fashioned moralistic dogma. It is a myth.
Human beings seek happiness - a basic tendency - which we recognise in others - and gives us our basis of morality.

Because of the process of the mind - our happiness is sought linearly, intertwined with our projection of time.
This allows us to ignore happiness, temporarily - believing as we do that it exists in our "projected future."
From long term projections, to really subtle projections, we defer our happiness from the "now" - into a mythical future - because we are speeding along inside the hamster wheel - our mind - the imaginary scenery being scrolled past - like in the old movies.
What Carlos Castaneda wrote about "stopping the world" - is exactly this - stopping that hamster wheel - even for a moment - to glimpse the reality - the reality of our own being.


Photo courtesy essence-of-reality.blogspot.com

To know that we are indeed, truly infinite beings - in fact - that we are all the one infinite being - the whole, the all - separation is not the reality - nor indeed is our limited perception of ourselves, who we truly are.
This is the eternal truth - hard to believe - but that just goes to show how pervasive our perceived sense of reality is - it's utterly convincing isn't it?
Yes - until you see beyond that projection.

To know that in the "now" - the only place that exists - lies the ability to observe the temptations of the hamster wheel - the lures of future happiness - the discontent that awaits a future resolution that will never come - all the colours of the rainbow, refracted from the one whole experience of that "now" - that allow us the projection of "choice" - but also separation, segregation, likes, dislikes.
All that becomes united in the "now" - as one experience - in which one has real choice - to obey the dictates of the mind or not - to be dragged by the mind back onto its hamster wheel - or not - if you can only stay in the "now" - where your awareness of infinity affords you such an amazing experience of abundance, of true cosmic mystery - to know - beyond any doubt (which only exists in the mind) of your being - your home - the universe in its awesome majesty - is all there - for this short journey on earth.
Such a sense of peace and fulfillment - to feel that abundance - to feel that unity with everything - it is there in that "now."

There are no negatives in that world, there is nothing lacking - nothing that cannot be.
Only fullness, continuance of completion.
There is only the gift of this awesome reality.

Where is the door?

Acceptance - deep, willfull acceptance.
Acceptance beyond effort, beyond the struggle to be - because your being already is.
Accept this gift.
Your being is calling out to become whole with itself - listen to its cries.
Accept - relax - gradually stop the hamster wheel - sink back into the "now" - sink back into awareness - it's always there - that awareness isn't going anywhere - ever - there is no place for it to go - there is no "time" for it to go - it always is - it is you - me - everything - your eternal home - your infinite being.
It can only be forgotten while believing in the fairytale of "time."
Open yourself up with gratitude - to the abundance of life - of existence - the complete and utter unknown - that is the reality of this experience on earth.
Forget the explanations - the excuses - don't put it off - it is "now."
Forget the theories - you are not a theory - you are a human being - this is your birthright - this experience.

Gratitude - humility - awareness - being.

The mystery of stillness - is utterly profound.

Try it.

Peace and love to all.

Exposure

I want to use the metaphor of a movie camera (the old type) - containing a reel of film to explain, in conceptual terms (because how else can something be explained?) the mechanics of experience.


Photo courtesy filmgeek

The point at which the unexposed film becomes exposed to the data from the lense is our now.
This now is a constant point - the unexposed film is continuously passing that point of exposure - changing from unexposed to exposed - changing from the unknown into the known.
Our awareness of now is created at that moment - at the threshold of change - it exists, if you like, as a realisation of the contrast between the unknown and the known.

By reviewing the exposed footage (our experiences - in memory) we conceptualise time. We presume that this footage represents the past - only because of this conceptualisation - and we deduce a future from this - unaware that our concept of time is purely a deduction, a presumption.
Whereas in reality - there is only the now - the point of exposure - where the unknown changes into the known.
That unknown is pure potential - potential experience - consciousness.
It is possible for the mind (the lense) to look into that unknown - by focusing the point of experience on itself - by observing experience as it changes from potential to actuality.

However - for most of the time, life has a quality of "double-exposure" to it.
Not quite the new experience it should be.
That is because we literally are looking at all of the new experiences through the reference of the old - we experience the present - the unknown, veiled with a filter of conceptual thought - the known.

How can any evaluation deduced from experience (conceptualisation) be in any way valid in trying to put the unknown in any context whatsoever?
We cannot measure the unknown by the known - it cannot have a context that we could possibly understand from the perspective of the known. Therefore it cannot have a context - other than its own, known only to itself.

We can make guesses as to the context - desire for experience, for life, for love - for lessons - but, still - they are all subject to our own perspective.

Now - having explained the mechanics of this process - in a totally conceptual, metaphorical way - let's look a bit closer at the reality - our being.

We constantly refer to the known - it is our library of experience - we identify with that known - but it is quite clear that the root of our identity is in the unknown.
Without the potential experience - there would be no experience.


Photo courtesy abgoodwin

Rather than being "film" - potential experience, consciousness is flooding into us, like light from an inner sun, it again experiences the known, the only just known, the long known, by experiencing our conceptual mind. However the experience itself is happening in the only place it can happen - the now - where potential experience is becoming actual.

Like flowing water and ice - it is all essentially water - but the fresh water, constantly bubbles up from a distant, eternal spring and the mind turns it into a progressively expanding glacier - that we experience slowly sliding away from us - into what we imagine is our past.


Photo courtesy geography-site

However that is the only place a past exists - in that glacier of the known - likewise its presumptive projection - the future.
Our real "future" - exists as pure potential.

Why is it so critical that we establish, for ourselves, individually - the root of our identity?

Let me make a critical distinction here - hopefully readers will see that this is all practical, not theoretical - and can be experienced, observed for themselves with suitable attention.
What we commonly mistake for "the experience" - is really "the experienced."
We confuse the subject (the experiencer - true identity of awareness itself) with the object (the detail of the experience) - although both are simultaneous and co-dependent.

To realise, unequivocally, beyond doubt - that true identity is the experience of awareness itself - fundamentally the potential for experience - will allow us to become progressively detached from identifying - ie. putting extravagent value, on the completely diverse range of "experienced" (objects of experience) - that make our individual journeys so distinctive and uniquely colourful.

When we look at the "experienced" - we find that there lies the cause for all separation - starting with the fact that all of the "experienced" involves an individual and completely autonomous "physical" body - and that is just the start.
All of our values (including the base value of identity) all of our beliefs, concepts, paradigms - everything - in toto - exist in the "experienced" - the known.
Many values we will find in common - we can share - but so many others, divide us - because we have attached our identity to them, and not where it belongs.

This is not belittling the experience of individuality at all - in fact it puts it in higher relief than ever before - as we begin to understand how bizarre, how intricate, how cosmically humorous, the nature of this reality actually is.
It does not belittle the experience at all - it magnifies it to its true proportion - it allows us a true sense of perspective - at last - a common perspective - shared, experienced at the base level of human life.
Simply by observing and understanding the significance of the observation.
Observing the unknown become the known.
By complete acceptance of our own being - we can allow the glacier to softly slide aside for a while.
Obviously the unknown is beyond categories of thought - and applies equally to the believer, the non-believer (I didn't say what the belief or non-belief was - there are potentially an infinite amount) - the milkman, the millionaire, princes, paupers - across the whole spectrum.

Simply by honestly observing the nature of experience - in oneself.

Inside - Outside?

This is the key question - are we "innies" or "outies" - and the answer will only arrive through contemplation of one's navel.

Seriously though - I have been thinking about this.


Photo courtesy vindon.co.uk

We are born into the constraints of our reality (our human body) - our reality is delineated by those constraints - and we cannot see outside those constraints.

Understanding what those constraints are however - can illuminate the answer to this question.

Because our equipment (senses - brain) is so seamlessly efficient and works so incredibly well - and importantly we have learned to exist and co-operate with them, we have never had cause or reason to question or to actually explore the nature of our inner environment.
We take it completely for granted and just carry on with our lives - believing that we have a direct interface with a solid, physical reality - out there in front of us, below us, around us.

Now all of this can be confirmed subjectively - by anyone.

Our identity is rooted in awareness.
It exists inside a panorama of thought.


Photo courtesy dailygalaxy

Despite learning that in fact we have a brain - we do not subjectively experience our brain - I have never seen my brain.
We experience within a panorama of understanding presented in the mind - we conceptualise from within this panorama.
Usually, when we are conscious of it - thought implies a conceptual "identity" thinking - inside this panorama - a sort of "avatar" - I suppose - but nevertheless, our entire sense of reality is created by the mind - in conjunction with awareness.
This is the holistic experience - relevent to a human being - much more so than any pretence at objectivity.

The panorama of thought is a representation of the consequences of the brain. For our awareness - in terms of the conclusions and assumptions made by the brain - interpreted into an understanding, this is our entire sense of reality. The world we live in. The brain provides the meaning to the data it receives through the sensory organs - which the mind knows as thought.
We are so convinved that we are dealing with "reality" - out there - but we are actually living in a world of thought - because of course - that is our reality.
That is the nature of our reality.
A world which from birth to death, we are so convinced exists "out there" - does not in fact exist out there as far as our actual awareness is concerned.
It exists inside the mind - it is a panorama of thought - incorporating everything that we know or have known.
Our entire existence has been unfolding for us at this point of interface between awareness and thought.
However - because the integration is so seamless - and because it is the only reality we have ever known - it is our normality - we totally accept it - no questions asked.

It is the brain and the ear which transform the consequences of air pressure into sound for our awareness - which in turn gets transformed into the separate conceptualisation of sound - in our conceptual thoughts.
It is as a consequence of light hitting the eye - inverted by the brain - that we see - that we have a picture in our mind - comprised of understanding relative to our environment.

With a different brain, with different eyes or ears - our world would be different - yet to us, it would be our normality - hence our reality.
Similarly - if the same data were input into our brain, representing any given sensory data, an experience could be totally replicated - yet different from the actuality of the physical environment.

Although this is a model of our reality - we can easily see the similarities between this model and what we know as "virtual reality."


Photo courtesy futureupdate

Why is this pertinent?

It is so pertinent because the presences in our reality are manifold - they are not limited to representations of just our physical environment - but of every single aspect of our lives. Wall to wall.
We perceive objects as thoughts.
We perceive other people as thoughts.
Our feelings, our reactions are all conceptualised into this inner environment - so critically interactions in our environment affect our emotions - our environment contains desire and fear, likes and dislikes.
It exists completely as conceptual thought - as a result, everything will have an opposite - presenting us with choice - with preferences. Our inner environment is entirely created from thought and concepts - so our conceptualised emotions impact on our reality as well.

Our judgements, our thoughts, our emotions - all perceived as conceptual thought will impact directly and immediately on our total paradigm of reality - just as our reality is created immediately and directly (as far as we can perceive) in our thoughts - it is a two way street - but a street that doesn't lead anywhere "out there" - it is all at the interface between awareness and thought.

So the answer to the question as to which effects which - inner or outer.
The truth is that as far as our experience goes (which is our reality as human beings) - there is no outer.
It is only a perception - a perception that exists in thought alone - and an emotional perception that is changed by thought alone.

We are aware that data is streaming through our sensory organs - but we construe that data as the concepts and "reality" presented by the mind - and that is the world we live in.
The concepts in turn - lead us to believe in duality, in opposites - there is no duality in the data itself.

That is the nature of our reality - our life is awareness - our identity is awareness - and that is how we interface with our environment, by bringing the environment inside and letting us re-create it according to choice.


Photo courtesy kreations.net

It is only our conceptualisation itself that creates the divisions inner and outer - therefore using them as terms of reference is misleading.

Nobody who doesn't understand this nature of reality can have a conscious choice to change their inner environment, although the same rules operate - when they think they are happy, their world temporarily changes - as their reality is fixed for them by accepting the environment and conditions as real - which, therefore they are. Real is only permanent if no change is possible. This acceptance over-rides any conscious contributions they may from time to time just wish for themselves. So you can see - to a great extent our "reality" is formed and transfixed by our environment - but it exists only as our inner awareness of it inside our world of thought.

What is transformed is the perception of reality - as an inner environment existing entirely in conceptual thought.
As such, and very really, our perception represents the totality of our reality.
This is not the same as being able to manipulate "matter" - but that our world is only our conceptual interpretation and understanding of it - and it does not exist anywhere else - as far as we are concerned.
We cannot take a short cut to our environment which circumnavigates the mind and the sense organs.

Relaxing In The Paradigm

Whatever "sense" we make out of our take on reality, I feel that somehow we have to arrive at a balance that allows us to continue with some degree of acceptance.


Photo courtesy fineartamerica

Possibly, by being partial in our observations our paradigm is being constantly created from a selective source of information.
The constraints already imposed on us by the equipment of our "physical" body already act as a filter on our perception, combined with the restraining, limiting perspectives we cause ourselves by viewing reality through a selective range of conceptualisations and frames of reference.

For some of us, our paradigm, the residual effect of our worldview, may be more or less influenced by politics, by religion, by scientific study, by psychology, by philosophy and also profoundly by our interaction with our fellow beings and by our observations of ourselves.

Perhaps the summation of these influences leads us to adopt one of two basic stances - that we see the world as a hostile place, requiring defensiveness, suspicion, security - a conclusion of fear.
Or that we see the world as a friendly place, inviting openness, trust and liberty - a conclusion of love.


Photo courtesy gilbertmaui

I feel that these run so deep within us that although we assimilate and compensate in order to create that balance within our being - they nevertheless influence our entire perspective - even as we relax within the arms of our paradigm.

So strong is the influence of this basic stance that it puts a bias upon all new information absorbed - because we have to assimilate that information somehow into an already established balance.
In other words, we subjectively distort information, shaping it to fit within a context already allowed for, by our own paradigm.

All this takes place in the realms of emotion and thought.
We are obsessed by a compulsion to balance - to create equilibrium.
In most cases I think we acheive this - we are able to continue with our lives - carrying around this sense of emotional and psychological balance.


Photo courtesy creativecow.net

Where does the compulsion for this balance originate?
Not from the paradigm itself, but from the emotional needs of our being.
Those emotional needs, although influenced by the paradigm itself, are shaped by their own requirement of balance and equilibrium.
In fact they are almost exclusively the motivating force for anything we do - and are themselves responsible for how our paradigm has been shaped.

We cannot therefore hope to reshape our world view, our paradigm and the basic emotional attitude we adopt unless we can somehow input into those emotions themselves.
Aptly demonstrated by what happens when we "fall in love" - the world becomes a different place.

At this point we enter a closed circle - our emotions are conditioned by our paradigm - and our paradigm is in turn influenced by our emotions.
Neither are free to change.

We need to find a source of inspiration, that has not yet been consumed, rendered impotent - by being absorbed into our conceptually defined world view.
We need to find a source of inspiration outside of the limited emotions that are conditioned by that world view.

Without this constant source - to take us from wherever we are, emotionally, conceptually - to somewhere else - we will remain forever defined and therefore dead.


Photo courtesy angelinoview

We need to open a window to the unknown.
We need to plug ourselves in to that indefinable mystery, that constant source of awe and mind-numbing majesty - our being.
Realising that each moment is in fact new - that we enter the unknown every second - with each beat of the heart, with each breath - we are on a journey into the unknown. Everything we do is completely at the mercy of a totally uncomprehendable universal law - allowing existence. Everything we think is only possible because of that law - a whole law - of which we have observed the merest, tiniest fraction - and in our conceit - we call it knowledge.
What else is capable of inspiring our hearts and minds?
Filling our hearts?

We are all entering this unknown together - right here - right now.
By reflection on that, within oursleves - we can find a very real unity.

Part of our paradigm is an acute awareness of death.
More than anything else perhaps, death represents the unknown.
Life - we think we can handle - we think we've understood, we have created our securities while we are here, by transforming the unknown into the known, precisely to defend us from realities like death.


Photo courtesy deviantart.com


Our awareness of death creates a division in our being - like a scalpel cutting through reality - on one side, fear and negativity - on the other, love and positivity.
Our attitudes, our stance exist somewhere along the line stretching between those two conceptual poles - as positive acceptance or negative resistance - likes or dislikes - we draw our personalities with a matrix of these lines.

On closer examination however - we will find that although these poles exist (conceptually) they are unified by the actual concept itself.
We tend to ignore that unity.

For example - without death (which is really one end of the line - "physical life") - what we conceptually visualise as its opposite - life - could not exist. It would be absolutely devoid of meaning, of value. There would be no compulsion, no motivation, no recognition. In fact death defines life - birth and death being the two ends of that conceptual line. Without two ends - we could not know it as life - as anything.

The same applies to any other polarities we care to think about - they are born out of the polarity of life and death.

They are the relative attribute of existence that allows it to be known.

However it is crucial to understand that all polarities only exist in conceptual thought - in reality they are united as one attribute.
For example - black and white - the same attribute of reflectivity of light.
Loud and soft - the same attribute of pressure waves causing sound.
Pleasure and pain - the same attribute of physical/emotional sensation.

If we are honest with our awareness - we can experience this.
Total acceptance of our being implies being absolutely honest with ourselves - simply observing and letting be.

The polarised, conceptual nature of reality is essential for accumulating understanding.
By pulling separate conceptual threads from the weave - and viewing them from a limited perspective - it can give rise to an understanding - but only an understanding that is of value to that particular perspective.
It is a piecemeal understanding - arrived from observation - this we call "knowing."

However there is another form of understanding - another form of knowing - beyond the capacity of logic and reason.

Our conceptual "knowledge" although useful, is second-hand knowledge, piecemeal and from observation only - and is exclusively human in relevence and origin.


Photo courtesy uweb.ucsb.edu

There is another form of knowledge - whole - first-hand, and creational in its relevence and origin.

Our second-hand knowledge cannot create - only conceptually can it create - so really it can only re-create, re-fashion what is already there.
First-hand creational knowledge - well - it's obvious isn't it - is behind, within creation - and importantly it is whole - or reality would not exist.

By stepping aside from our conceptual view - we can enter into this wholeness - this newness every moment - as we are constantly being sustained by that whole law.
By simply being aware - here - now - without judgement - without conceptualisation - without trying to understand.

Total acceptance of our being - by accepting ourselves, completely, absolutely, individually - we are automatically accepting the entirety of existence - for it is one and the same.

Taking Liberties

Image courtesy bbc.

Is not a window
But a see-through wall?
There's more we shall know
By not looking at all.

It's just occurred to me that the unknown is identical to the known.

Let me try and explain.

I would equate "knowing" with understanding - the bedrock of our being.

We may not know the entirety of our being, subjectively, but it is there - and we are still "being" it nevertheless.

A different kind of "knowledge" is the term we use for collecting empirical "facts" or "theories" - which by definition - require us to adopt a certain perspective with which to contain their reference - because a "fact" or "theory" without a frame of reference cannot exist.
This is the term we use for objective knowledge - looking through a narrowly defined window of perspective - of which there are an infinite potential variety - this kind of knowledge exists only in our conceptual mind.

Our conceptual mind overlays reality with a veil - usurping the being of that reality with the conceit of pretended knowledge - it is deceitful - stealthily substituting the truth of that being with a token (not a fair exchange) - a word, a label or a theory - based on only its selective, relative and dualistic perspective - dividing and defining an unknown whole - and replacing it with a sum of parts derived from its own imagination.

That is why I say that the unknown is identical to the known.

It is identical if we refer subjectively - and also if we refer objectively.
Subjectively we can be no more or no less than 100% of our being - so whether known or unknown - it changes nothing.
Objectively - we are merely dealing with tokens - the known or the unknown are simply more tokens - more deceit.

OK - let's ease up a while - objectiveness, our relative perspective is not the villain I make it out to be - or is it?
It is our innate perspective - the one we are educated to see by our senses - by our individualised nature.
Like the crest of a rolling wave - formed and yet formless - at the threshold between subject and object.
A moving point of awareness - but it is not concrete - it is as free and undefined as we care to allow it to be.


In some ways - it is the classroom.
Where and how we learn - in our relationship to our environment and fellow beings.
Where we associate with pain of differing types - emotional and physical.
Where that pain becomes the biggest educator of them all.
Where we start to question.
Where we start to explore.

We start to search.

Secretly - I believe that all of us, deep down, are aware that our sense of "I" ness is mysterious, is magical, is miraculous.
Our being is a most precious gift.
Either from gratitude - or in supplication through suffering - or just from an awesome sense of wonder at it all - we turn our minds to questions of origin.

Now we're in trouble - especially if we are determined for an answer.

You see - our conceptual minds work entirely with a dualistic perspective - a perspective that operates almost identically to our rules of language.
Subject, adjective, noun, verb, object, cause and effect etc.
We are already dealing only with the tokens issued by that mind to substitute reality.
They are not connected to that reality in any relevant way - other than for defining and labelling it within the constricts of a relative state.
With the limited perspective available to it - the conceptual mind (aware that it did not create itself) is at the mercy of the following restricted supposition.

I (subject) exist (verb) and I (subject) did not create (verb) myself (effect/object) - therefore I must have a creator (cause/object.)

Of course this dialectic is supported, at least superficially, by most major religions - and with their added authority - do we really need to look any further?

How much further dare we look?

Let's be extremely courageous - and dedicate our purpose to sincerely discovering the truth - then we can expect to be welcomed back to our creator and to be forgiven if that's where we are led.

A quick recapitulation at this point - we have already discussed that we cannot be more or less than 100% of our true being - whether known or unknown - we are that very being right now.

Our understanding of the conceptual mind has lead us to see that we might have invented the concept of a creator as being separate from the creation.

Yet we still have the sense of mystery, of awe, of the miraculous.
Why?
Because inescapably, existence, our being feels like that - at times.

Our being.

If we could accept our being, totally - right now - stop asking questions - stop cheating ourselves with deceitful answers - allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by that mystery, that awe - the miracle - could that make a difference?

Would it matter then - if we could find that unconditional acceptance - which if we are honest - we spend every waking moment chasing for.

Do you disagree?

Why do we turn to alchohol, or drugs, or relationships, or seeking more?
Or seek oblivion by obsession?
Do we accept ourselves - or are we trying to prove something to win approval to our own set of conditions - inherited or invented?
Why do we invent tomorrow, if not from fear or desire?
Tomorrow we will approve ourselves - but not today - tomorrow - over the fence, where the grass is emerald green - and actually belongs to our neighbour - which is why it matters not that we throw all our rubbish there - from today.

The ability to accept - now - this miracle.
If we do all those things in the cause of finding happiness - we are really denying that it exists.
If we search for it - we are denying that it exists - here.
Denying that happiness and ourselves can co-exist - now.

Accepting our own being unconditionally, automatically takes us beyond conceptual thought, to a state where we accept the whole - beyond division, beyond separation.
That includes everything within our awareness - and beyond.

If we were to find that ability - would it make any difference?
Would it make a difference to what we called - being?
Would it matter what origins that being had?
Scientific - natural - spiritual - only labels.

Being - contentment - acceptance - of ourselves - unconditionally - can lead to joy.
Honest, unattached joy can lead to gratitude.
Gratitude can lead to action.

Anything else is a condition that is being met - and not liberty.

Thanks for sharing this journey with me.

Another extraordinarily delightful website on this topic - Yoism

A Journey, Love & Abuse.

What started my mind whirring in the direction that resulted in this post being written?


Photograph courtesy JJLeeming abd.org.uk

Quite simply - a journey.

Driving home after a Saturday morning doing some work - it's a lovely sunny day.
Faced with the contrast of the motor cars on the road, the tarmac roads themselves - set against a backdrop of natural surroundings - fields, trees, grazing cows - all very pleasant and acceptable.
But somehow there seems a subconscious division between the natural and the man-made.


Photograph courtesy treehugger.com

Then the mind kicks in - it intercepts this perception, interrogates it as to its validity.

This vision of the world transforms into a historical perspective - what I see now is merely a glimpse, a snapshot of mankind's evolution.
Life and matter.
Mankind enjoying it's recreative ability - the way it can transform and manipulate matter to make human life more amenable.
But somewhere in this equation is a motivating force - an energy.
We could call it the life force.
Such a powerful force that has the will, the irrepressable urge to recreate & procreate, survive & thrive.


Photograph courtesy earthecho.com

I want to examine the word "love."
I feel at times it is grossly overused and abused.
What do we mean when we say "I love" something or somebody?

Let me offer this definition.
We mean that some deep part of us is moved to - identify with, attach itself to, desire the experience of, intimately associate with - the object of this love.
It can be used at a very casual level or a very profound level.
We use the same word for french fries, a TV programme or a significant partner in our lives.
We may even use it when describing a relationship with the Divine.
As such it is used as a verb.

How about as a noun - as in "making love?" Two (or more?) individuals accommodating their expression of a mutually shared - identification with, attachment to, desire for the experience of, intimate association with - each other.
How about as in the phrase "an act of selfless love?"
Implying an inner motivating force, the love, which compells one to perform a selfless act.

The common denominator in all the above is that "love" is always referring to something that seems to be universally understood, recognised and appreciated, valued and treasured - no matter how the word is applied, it is always in the context of the positive, an ideal, a pleasant experience or harmonious co-existence.
You may agree or disagree with my definitions, but I am certain you will not deny that love exists.

Back to the car journey.

I realise that although I am seeing the world in all its colour and glory - maybe I am blind.
Just as this very computer can only deal with binary information - my eyes can only deal with a certain spectrum of visible light.
That's what they were designed to do - and function extraordinarily well - but nevertheless, it is a highly selective form of "vision."
I cannot see television broadcasts without a TV set, I cannot see x-rays, the ultra or infra.
I have a paper bag over my head - I think my vision is all encompassing - but it isn't.
The same can be said for all my other senses.
I am perceiving a highly selective band of "reality" through my variety of receiving apparatus.
I am living in a world of experience, defined and limited by a human body.


Photograph courtesy boingboing.net

I am also living behind the filter of conceptualisation.
For example, as above I outlined various conceptualisations of the word "love" - do I choose to ignore the reality that love is a powerful motivating force in my life - it must have an origin - do I allow myself to get tangled up in the complicated, highly subjective issues of morality, of ethics - concerned more with the interpretation, definition and expression of this "love" in human conceptual terms - rather than explore its actuality?


Photograph courtesy enchantedmind.com

Love - as a force, an energy, a power?
A force that moves us so deeply, that is common to all life, recognised universally?
What if we had eyes of a slightly different design, that allowed us to see love?
What would it look like?

Would everything sparkle - be covered in a fiery incadescence - a fluid shimmering energy - full of eddies and swirls - dancing between, around, all amongst us - would we see it obedient to our will - would it transform as we interacted with each other?


Photograph courtesy dreamingheart.com

Quantum Physics is right now toying with the notions that perhaps gravity and mass, such primordial essences, are the attributes of certain specific sub-atomic particles. These theories have yet to be proven as science is stretching itself to design and build the experimental equipment required, such as the LHC at CERN (see other post 10, 09, 08 . . .)
Whereas science requires demonstrable, quantifiable proof
- most of us are content with personal experience to teach us - and we do not really need further acknowledgement to prove that love exists.
But maybe "love" is another sub atomic particle - existing in the Quantum world - at a level of infinite smallness.

It doesn't really require an emormous stretch of the imagination to formulate an equation, beyond any conceptualisation, dealing with the actuality of love as a power, a force, an energy - suffused with pure potential, pure will, pure consciousness.
Adequate will to manifest itself from a pure state into the creation of a universe.

God=Love or Love=God

Love also supplies the reason for creation - if one were needed.
Creative activities & indulgencies sometimes bring a breath of that force, that power, that love - a stirring in the heart of absolute joy and wonder.
A love so vast, so powerful that we cannot imagine - implying such a recreational liberty that our conceptual world cannot contain its understanding.
Love provides an adventure for itself - a journey - an evolution.
Why?
For no reason other than because it can - and for the joy of the experience.
What other reason can such an infinite power have?


Now remember, we are discussing a real power here - a real force - not the result of a human thought process, but the very cause of it - and the potential for everything else.
It is beyond obligation, beyond honour, beyond guilt, beyond aspirations, beyond hope or dreams - it is our very nature.

We could call such a power God - referring to Him, Her or It - would it matter?
We could even dispense with the upper case letters.
Would it matter?

Such a God, with such an infinite power - would not be at all perturbed by what we thought, by what we did - after all - we all have a contract with the laws of the universe - and there is no escape clause.
Such a God certainly would not be concerned with how we portrayed Him - because such an infinite power can be portrayed in an infinite amount of ways - all equally suited.
Would such a God require us to worship him?
No.

Any such discussion is really nonsense.
Any discussion or perception of god, because of the confines of language and because of the way we think - automatically creates a subject/object division - a separation - which cannot be true.
It is simply a convenient way of approaching the subject for our everyday awareness.
But often it becomes a convenient excuse - if we fail to realise that Divine intervention is in our own hands.

Atheist or believer - they are only labels and do nothing to alter the reality.


Photograph courtesy fp.enter.net

Religions of a devotional nature are admirably suited to acheiving enlightenment in a way that is so comfortably human - dealing as they do with the primal force of love as it manifests in human relationships - or a relationship with a deity.

Humility is the recognition of something so totally beyond our comprehension, our logical capability to understand - beyond the familiar spheres in which we operate as human beings.
Nevertheless - this Divinity is something in which we have an intimate share.

Humility levels the ground - it doesn't detract or weaken.
In fact - with its recognition of the truth - humility restores, amplifies and provides enormous strength - and allows for a space in our hearts and lives to become filled with even more of that infinite love.
A space created automatically when all the junk collected by the ego is thrown out of the attic.
It permits true understanding - which is, after all, standing-under.

Our only obligation, if we choose, is to our true selves, to realise this in our lives, to see it and live it as the true reality - and what a liberating and joyful prospect that is.
How severe a discipline is it anyway - to become what we already are?
Can we conceive of a discpline that is pure joy?
Can we emerge from the shadows of fear?
Can we reach that true liberty?

None of this can possibly do anything to detract from the awesome nature of the universe, of life - the miraculous reality of existence.
It does nothing to lessen the majestic power of creation.
Nor should it prevent us from feeling blessed with such abundance and giving thanks.

What it does is simply include us as a part of the equation.
In ignorance or enlightenment - whatever, whenever, wherever - it is all a part of that equation - that journey.

It is the journey itself that is the reality - and we are all fellow travellers - right now.

Some religions refer to it as a journey through Maya - or illusion - a journey from darkness and ignorance to enlightenment and understanding - and the final recognition, love re-knowing of itself - shining brightly, undeniably, within its own cunning disguise.
The disguise - is you and me - but so is the essence, the motivating force, the love.
Illusion carries no stigma, as it is an essential part of the plan - necessary rather than negative.
We are the seed, the tree and the fruit - the beginning, the middle and the end of this journey - this evolution.
Love is our inner guide, our constant reminder - our map.

A satellite navigation system to blow your mind.


Photograph courtesy wmich.edu

Infinite Science

Could science itself be an infinite quest?



Constantly, the net of discovery is becoming more and more refined - first of all catching whales, then discovering that whales trap krill to eat - then asking "What does krill eat, and what does that lifeform eat?"
Evolving through chemistry, the tables of the elements, to physics and a point where it considered protons and electrons to be fundamental, universal building blocks, but has now discovered a whole range of smaller particles - Quantum Physics - Quarks, Mesons, Bosons etc.
Sretching to the limit the ability to prove by experimental means what mathematics and theory suggests and predicts.
Although the word atom is derived from the Greek "atamos" - meaning uncuttable, or undivisible - science appears to have found further divisions.

This refinement is taking it into regions of "Atto" measurements - a billionth of a billionth.
Discovering oscillations at speeds that challenge the ability to measure - appearing, perhaps to be superimpositions - or conveying the dual existence of Schrodinger's cat.
Particles with the properties of waves?

It is journeying down the road to the infinitely small - the infinitely fast - which will always remain at least one step ahead - concealing always something around the next bend.
Or perhaps it is coming to the edge of the current paradigm, requiring a radical shift to proceed further.
Beyond the event horizon of this paradigm lies a whole new universe of understanding - which requires that it abandon such notions as time - limitations presumed - such as the speed of light.



Perhaps even the tool of logic may prove too blunt - the light of our intelligence too dim.
Our arms are too short, despite the evolving technology that we equip them with, to reach any final goal - because maybe there isn't one.

Science itself is an infinite journey - a perpetual discovery - with its historic acheivements being simply milestones stretching as far as the eye can see.
At some future date - certainly - the amazing excitement going on at CERN right now - will be just another chapter in the book of human scientific adventure - a few pages further on from electric light and penicillin.

But science is somehow part of our DNA - that curiosity we have - a vacuum that so urgently sucks in knowledge and understanding.

The great caverns hewn out of the ground at CERN, where the vast megalithic experiments are housed, are aptly known as the cathedrals.

For the active worship that takes place there is surely a demonstration of the deepest reverence - an awestruck obsession with the mysteries of creation.

10, 09, 08, . . .

Perhaps the start of a count down?
Well - who knows - but it certainly is the planned date of the first BEAM ON - at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research - or CERN - in Geneva, Switzerland.


A worker inside the LHC tunnel
(Image courtesy of CERN)

For the first time, the giant 27 km circular particle collider (LHC - Large Hadron Collider) will fire up - smashing sub-atomic particles into each other at speeds approaching the speed of light - in an attempt to re-create a mini version of events that happened in the first few billionths, of the very first second of time - a fraction after the Big Bang.

But did you know that the very first proposal for the World Wide Web (WWW) was made at CERN? Well I certainly didn't until I started browsing their fascinating website.

Enter the extraordinary world of Quarks, Gravitons, Bosons - and the search for the Higgs Particle (or Higgs boson) - already postulated theoretically as a contender for the particle responsible for the attribute of mass - at the moment, being one of the key questions asked by Quantum physicists.

Dark matter, string theory? No problem - just step this way.

There have been scary rumours, completely disproved by recent thorough safety evaluations - that perhaps the first collision might create a real black hole - that possibly the scientists there will unwittingly bring about the destruction of planet earth.
There have been amusing articles written suggesting that perhaps a warp in the fabric of time could permit time travellers from the future to appear.
We'll all find out - on Wednesday (although no actual collisions are scheduled for a while.)

There is a bit of a dilemma at the moment - Albert Einstein's famous theory of General Relativity & the formula E=MC2 seem to be consistent and satisfactory at the Macro level of the universe - but not on the Micro level - the Quantum level.
This is not a pleasing state of affairs - A Theory of Everything - (if there were one - the Holy Grail for science at the moment) would unify the apparant inconsistencies between the Standard Model (being the name given to the current theory on particle interaction) and Einstein's GR theory.


(Click for interview - Robert Aymar - Director General of CERN)

Wednesday 10th September 2008 - sees the start of the most cutting-edge scientific experiments into all these questions - and no doubt, many more.


(Image courtesy CERN)

An auspicious example of international collaboration - Milestones - will give you a detailed impression of the scale of the undertaking & the enormous engineering and scientific challenges presented in the building of the LHC.

I wish them all the very best of inspiration and good fortune over at CERN.
It's massive - it's exciting - it's on the frontier of physics right now.
You can sign up for an account with them - keep in touch.


Entertaining & educational - the "Large Hadron RAP."

A humorous side? Gravitons, Protons, Bosons . . .

It was enlightening for me to learn that forces such as gravity and possibly properties like mass have their origins in sub-atomic particles - various combinations and permutations of Quarks.
It brings many interesting questions to my mind about other fundamental properties, other attributes - such as intelligence, willpower, consciousness - could there actually be sub-atomic particles responsible for these?
Which led me to imagine an alphabet of potential discoveries . . .

A list of new sub-atomic particles discovered at CERN.

The Amazon - the particle responsible for tall people.

The Baron - the particle responsible for blue blood.

The Chameleon - the particle responsible for colour.

The Dependon - the particle responsible for reliability.

The Eggon - the particle responsible for encouragement.

The Futon - the particle responsible for insomnia.

The Geton - the particle responsible for friendship.

The Hangon - the particle responsible for . . . delay.

The Iron - the particle responsible for decrease.

The Jettison - the particle responsible for rubbish.

The Kettleon - the particle responsible for tea.

The Longjon - the particle responsible for heat.

The Marathon - the particle responsible for d i s t a n c e.

The Napoleon - the particle responsible for short people.

The Onandon - the particle responsible for boredom.

The Presson - the particle responsible for determination.

The Question - the particle responsible for curiosity.

The Reason - the particle responsible for everything.

The Strapon - the particle responsible for gratification.

The Tampon - the particle responsible for blockages.

The Upon - the particle responsible for elevation.

The Viagron - the particle responsible for rigidity.

The What'son - the particle responsible for the radio times.

The Xylophon - the particle responsible for fossils.

The You'reon - the particle responsible for stagefright.

The Zion - the particle responsible for the middle east crisis.

(I would love you to comment, with your own suggestions . . .)

A very useful GLOSSARY