What it is about blue

Last night reading in bed with Satie gnossiennes - 1. lent playing I glanced up at the window opposite. It was the blue hour and through the curved top sash window the sky was deep blue and glossy; blue glass. Both the music and this blue glass each individually take me to a space of contemplation, together more so. A portal opens. I think of those Rothko paintings that though muted somehow form a pulsating portal through which we might almost step through. Almost; the transcendent remaining somehow visible and yet remote. No, this blue glass forms a frame through which it seems I've already passed; somehow although it remains 'out there' on the other side of the room, I am already through. The sky beyond though not visible as such is much deeper than the distance to the window and I am somehow there; through the window. And there is the sensation of BLUE. No other colour has this energy.

Evolution

What is the relationship of the evolutionary biology model of life on earth to the perennial philosophy? No, I am not thinking about why Richard Dawkins is wrong, or rather why is it that he misses the key to the whole does God exist argument? Namely that there is no Archimedian point, it's all interdependently originated and he doesn't seem to get the point about the definition of God. If you want to debate first define your terms and all that. But let's not get into that argument, Voltaire is attributed with 'God is a circle whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere.

Evolutionary biology sits comfortably for me within interdependent origination. There seems to be in the void a desire to be, to give rise to as many forms as we see, and there are lots of forms, lots of creatures and lots of things. None of this sheds much light on the ground of being, the nature of the void, the unanswerable question 'is it divine?' It's not just about the mechanism by which forms emerge, the nature of the observer needs to be considered.

Anyway, the question I was thinking about is the relationship between desire and enlightenment. Now, as I understand it, most spiritual traditions can be summed up by the perennial philosophy, which broadly speaking, tels us to practice non-attachment, see the emptiness in things and aim to stop being dragged around by desire. With this approach acceptance or compassion arises and we become an expression of the source, charitable love. Bingo, enlightenment. Would that it were that quick and simple! But, to return to the question, 'what's this got to do with desire, and what's that got to do with evolutionary biology?'. Well, desire to survive is the basis of evolution and evolution seems to have given the universe human beings, the most aware creatures in the material world. You see that I acknowledge the problem of not having an Archimedian point; reality is bounded by our experience, so we can't limit it just to the material, so we can't rule out more aware beings. Indeed, from a spiritual point of view we assume that there are more aware beings, but at this point we move out of the limits of the material world away from form is form. Yet it is in a human life that we have the chance to practice a spiritual tradition, to seek enlightenment. And so the void in generating forms, in generating evolution (including desire) gives rise to the opportunity for enlightenment. Desire being an interesting link, an interesting way to look at things, a frame (which I think of as a device by which we might understand the way the void forms by folding forms over each other), is the driving force behind all this including the opportunity for enlightenment. Unless I've got something very wrong in my thinking. But then I recall, from my post in January on Vitality;

...that in his book 'Mysticism: Christian and Buddhist' DT Suzuki writes about trisna (tanha) as:...more deeply rooted than we imagine, as it grows straight out of the root of karuna.

So I've had this sort of thought running around in my head for a bit it would seem. And why is it of interest? Because, I think it points to a very important question; what is it that one should desire? What is a life well lived?

Thriving

A new frame come to my attention yesterday; 'thriving'. I think of frames as ways in which the unity having given rise to us takes a step further and lets us see something. Bits of unity folding over its self to create and reveal.

So, what was the concept of thriving able to reveal to me yesterday? Well, I placed the notion against some of my recollections of my past (that constantly reinvented story) and considered was I thriving (or thwarted) back then? And I saw that at painful times, times for which I have subsequently tried to work out an explanation, I was not thriving and that was painful or at least the recollection is associated with pain.

Repression either by others or one's self whilst useful can go too far and thus prevent thriving. And I see that some of my anger has been a reaction to subjugation; repression by others gone way too far so as to prevent thriving.

To thrive seems to be an expression of generation, creation, aliveness. Trisna (tanha)? We desire to be or rather the unity folds or unfolds to express. To let one's ego get wrapped up in this is to suffer but to let one's ego or an others ego repress this is also to suffer. And this points I think to our attachments and how complex and deep they run, because we repress because we are attached to something. This is complex, no wonder we can take a life time (and more) to see our way through it, to truly thrive and to Wake up! and Pay attention!

Felt meaning

I was reading last night about felt meaning, the prelinguistic feeling of... just what seems to be the way of it for one just before the words fix a construction. The how it is for one before the story gets in the way. I sort of use this feeling to prompt posts; I sort of ask what is it now? But the story is there of course clouding things up. So it was a good reminder to read about prelinguistic felt meaning.

So, how is it? Well, I can't quite put my finger on it but I fear I may have slipped in to a spiritual rut. I try to be spacious and grounded in the moment not getting too tied up in waiting for tomorrow. But I feel aimed at some goal which is I think needed to some extent but I am not sure the balance is quite right. I need to have a framework, a structure to my life; I am in the realm of form. Wake, sleep, eat, work, etc. provide space for free time. All my time provides opportunity to be awake to life, to live not just prepare for a tomorrow that never comes. Am I awake, am I living the fullest life for me? Umm.

Wiping the dust away. Pealing the layers of defenses away. Has this stalled? Am I connecting?
Not sure.

Eggs or soup

I want to continue with the ideas in yesterday's post. Moment by moment I face choice; eggs or soup (for lunch), read, listen to the radio, join the conversation or not, express a view or not, etc., etc. What about hold a view or not? What are my views? What are my values? What do I hold important? What do I desire? My view and my desires affect the choices I make. I am talking about the map I hold to guide me through, no, make my life. I hold up my frames through which I make meaning, compare what I see with the yardstick of my views and choose. My views, values and desires are in relationship. And I am not always aware of the complex precess which is driving all this. I have my compass; I might watch my emotions, look out for attachments as best I can but I can't see all the map and bits of it keep getting redrawn. Not to get stuck with a fixed view, to avoid dogma is a very challenging goal. And of course, it's the goal bit that needs to be dropped, or at least the attachment to it, if one is to avoid getting stuck. To really be awake to every option and to be awake to choosing and the reasons for that choice, not to sleepwalk through it, that is to expand ones life

I think this a very different position from someone who accepts a dogma and is devastated when life crashes through it showing the limitations of the frames, the emptiness of the forms. But such a person is unlikely to be aware of their frames and will probably view forms as absolute. Views and values which are based on belief in forms as absolute will always run up against conflicting values because we don't all have the same frames. We each must make our own meaning. What's this, solipsism? No! We make our meaning in relation to others, we exist in relation to others. Which brings focus around to the ego, the extent to which our relations are selfish. And it can take a lot to know when we are selfish, because our values can get in the way. Dogma? And as if this were not enough, we need remember that life is much bigger than us; it makes us moment after moment and we need to remember not to get stuck.

I need to remember not to get stuck and not to get too idealistic.