There are a lot of things that can be said about the word "spiritual", and for me, ALL of them are probably true... (in the sense that when one goes deeply inward, it is seen that nothing is true, and everything is true)...but, here is what I would like say about the word just now:
if it is not willing to go inward, and (self) examine the "what about me" thought, then it is not "spiritual"...
hopefully, you are seeing the irony here- this very statement that I just made can be called into question by its own position- "does this statement go inward, and examine the "what about me" thought, or does it posit a certainty about the matter?
seeing the truth of this, however, may be enough to let it be... seeing the falseness of language itself, and seeing this with great immediacy and care (compassion), itself and alone, may counter the shortcomings of language, to allow for what is spiritual to come to the meeting...
agenda, however, will simply acknowledge the shortcomings of language, and carry on with making its point- bound to coming into conflict with all the other "points" and "positions" out there... in agenda, there is no real Listening- there is just more of the "whats in it for me" thought... agenda cuts off the spiritual, and then makes argument for why it was "right"... it will be telling the truth of that, certainly- but it will still be partial, and not of the whole... when one listens, without agenda, one is participating in the whole...
this is the essence of collaboration- this is what comes to truly meet you...
Jalal ad-Din Rumi said:
so, what do we do, when we come upon another's insistence- another's request for compassion from us, BEFORE they will listen to us? Do you see this? this is the essence of agenda- of the "what about me" thought... "First, YOU give me, THEN, I will give you in return"... there are things in life that come to this and are still called "knowing" or "non-negotiable"... but they are delivered out of the "what about me" thought, and that itself will close off any possibility of meeting... so what then?
how will we meet with this closedness?
what happens, when open meets closed?
do you see this? it is very clear... only the agenda, the "what about me" thought itself, will not be able to see the truth of what happens when open meets closed...
look with me...
if it is not willing to go inward, and (self) examine the "what about me" thought, then it is not "spiritual"...
hopefully, you are seeing the irony here- this very statement that I just made can be called into question by its own position- "does this statement go inward, and examine the "what about me" thought, or does it posit a certainty about the matter?
seeing the truth of this, however, may be enough to let it be... seeing the falseness of language itself, and seeing this with great immediacy and care (compassion), itself and alone, may counter the shortcomings of language, to allow for what is spiritual to come to the meeting...
agenda, however, will simply acknowledge the shortcomings of language, and carry on with making its point- bound to coming into conflict with all the other "points" and "positions" out there... in agenda, there is no real Listening- there is just more of the "whats in it for me" thought... agenda cuts off the spiritual, and then makes argument for why it was "right"... it will be telling the truth of that, certainly- but it will still be partial, and not of the whole... when one listens, without agenda, one is participating in the whole...
this is the essence of collaboration- this is what comes to truly meet you...
Jalal ad-Din Rumi said:
There is a way between
Voice and Presence
where information flows
in wandering talk, it closes
in disciplined silence, it opens
so, what do we do, when we come upon another's insistence- another's request for compassion from us, BEFORE they will listen to us? Do you see this? this is the essence of agenda- of the "what about me" thought... "First, YOU give me, THEN, I will give you in return"... there are things in life that come to this and are still called "knowing" or "non-negotiable"... but they are delivered out of the "what about me" thought, and that itself will close off any possibility of meeting... so what then?
how will we meet with this closedness?
what happens, when open meets closed?
do you see this? it is very clear... only the agenda, the "what about me" thought itself, will not be able to see the truth of what happens when open meets closed...
look with me...
2 comments:
And what if the one who insists on perfectly compassionate reception before listening to us *is* us?
That sure has been my experience.
Not surprisingly, in his Rule, Benedict extolled monastics to prefer silence so much they'd even avoid saying "the good things." He was obviously well aware that a lot of our talk - perhaps especially talk that was supposed to be "helping" - was a distraction from our own sense of lack and pain. And that most of us in his "school for beginners" (which is what a monastery was) were incapable of spiritually-centered speech since we still believed we were our personalities (or ego or whatever you want to call the earthy, temporary part of us).
Such silence is a wonderful practice, but hard... And I, at least, need to hold with great compassion the parts of me that can't quite hack it.
YES Eleana !
just so here as well! and this speaks to what I will often quote, "relationship is a mirror" - this is a true seeing of the inward mirror... why does one need to "comment" if one sees that it IS oneself that is seen?
what has been becoming clearer and clearer though, is that its the Compassion itself which is the greater thing than the silence (if the silence is in any way "forced" out of "practice" or method, then it is not BORN of compassion- of a true seeing of the mirror... the more one sees, I think, that its the compassion itself that acts without the "me", the silence is merely a natural result... yes, even the "good things" need not be commented on here- but then, nothing would preclude that either!
there is an ecstatic nature to life, when the veil of "me" is lifted, yes?
expressions of that ecstasy that IS life itself, will take every form it has ever taken- is that not so? Im asking here, Im not "telling"- lets share this looking together...
I can have no "argument" with the rule of Benedict- one may find that a practice of silence will lead one to seeing the oneness of all- and that is a blessed thing...
but too, that may be only for a certain set of brain-types- what of other brain-types? is it possible that a practice of silence is counter to unveiling of the "me"? ... it seems possible to me...
so I look for that which applies to all, if that might be possible too (perhaps it is not?)... compassion for oneself... when that becomes compassion for all- this seems to carry a magic that is transcendent- but theres a trick embedded into that too, from what Ive seen- that compassion is not a trait, is not a "thing" that one can carry- that one can "have"... it comes from something much much deeper, and can never be "had" or carried... it MUST be created new in each and every moment...
and from what Ive been seeing of late, that movement, or energy, of "created new in every moment" comes from the simplest of actions, Looking...
just Looking alone, will come upon the mirror, the inward mirror, which seems to bring compassion and silence
a completely different sort of silence than just "non-audible" - but silence of the mind, which is then free to speak, or not...
this silence is so called, I should think, because it does not require anything, and it leaves no trace - there is no adherence to the unfolding... there is no "time" to it... it seems to be the meeting place of form with the formless- of the ground of all being, and beingness come to form... this is where I will see what I call "silence"- it has NO requirements, No conditions, even on the brain that might be along to measure it...
but, this too may be partial only? how would "I" know?
Im rambling now- wandering talk... I look forward to hearing more of what you might say here...
Post a Comment