In Movement, Stillness; In Stillness, Stillness

From the Peace Pagoda, Pokhara, Nepal.

I don't have the wherewithal nor the desire to rain on other people's parades. But I question what goes on in the subjectivity of other people. I know that from my limited, tiny purview, at moments unbidden, a silence descends. I call it Presencing, purloining Heidegger and Jeanne de Salzmann unabashedly.

It Presences when I'm walking in the middle of a busy street, sitting around a table with friends, and sometimes when I do expect it; during meditation or taijiquan or any number of movement practices.

It's not true, then, that it always arrives "unbidden", but often, that's the case. It's not some "feeling" or some kind of "oceanic sensation" of absorption into the Cosmos. It's much, much more than that; it's so very ordinary.

I don't particularly feel this has anything to do with "me"; I return to this point over and over again. The "me" or the "I" that is associated with a unique, discrete mind or being is a constellation of events, history, and memory that seems to provide some temporal continuity as a whole apart from other, similar beings. But a funny (ha-ha) thing occurs when "you" simply abide as quietly and attentively as a cat watching a bird in the garden. There is awareness of the chatter, but the chatter isn't distracting; it's rather like listening to a summer rain or a spring shower.

There's awareness of sensations, but only in the sense that they arise and fall, appear, recede. In the stillness, one is aware of a tingling coming into existence, lingering and dissolving. Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; there's nothing to cling to, nothing to let go of.

Some of my friends receive messages from dakinis and angels. This is fine; chanting mantras, training the mind with visualizations, whatever benefits is fine. I know that at various points, there is a similar stillness for practitioners. How it manifests for some may be different; I don't know that.

Again, "I". "I" isn't the problem. Clinging to "I" is the issue; the hardening of fluid existence into "solid" things; dynamic relationships freezing into me/you, us/them, and all the useless and often dangerous biases and bigotries that accompany that. The rhetorical question of why this happens is owing to the fear of not existing, of an underlying desire for things to remain the same, to be safe in our constructed world.

There's also the persistence that mundane existence is lacking. There's bewilderment, confusion, and trepidation alternating with fleeting happinesses, satisfactions, and pleasures. Nothing wrong with this. It's simply the state of confusion-as-it-is. Again, issues arise when there is clinging to this shadow play as definitive reality, as an absolute value in a world of constant, shifting relativity (of both phenomena and values).

Recently, my dharma brother Gomchen Karma and I agreed that there is a need to go beyond religion. There's "my religion", "your religion", "my God is better than your God", "Shiva could kick Buddha's ass", and so on. If God is real or Reality itself, there should be no worry. There should be no need to convince others of that. Similarly, if Gautama Buddha, Guru Rinpoche, and all these other worthies brought beneficial teachings into the world, then fine; no need to try to possess them as though they're the exclusive property of this or that sect or knowledge-holder.

I say "dharma brother"; I don't mean to imply some Party Politik Dharma. Yes, yes! Of course, I've been fortunate to have wonderful teachers and associations with deep and deeply wonderful people; but at the end of the day, streams diverge to travel throughout and across varietes of terrain to return to the ocean (or perhaps to evaporate into air or turn into steam); but the stream travels and abides in its movement.

From the outside, maybe the stream appears to be Left or Right, Christian or Muslim, Theist or Atheist, Purple or Yellow and the more these are attached to, the more division and conflict ensues.

Why is this important? Well, consider the world humans inhabit. Consider the trauma that we visit upon each other. You may, if you are so inclined, attribute this to karma. After all, karma simply means "action". But it's important to consider that the farther along we go, the more we need to realize (literally, make real) that our actions have consequences, that if we don't wish to feel pain, we shouldn't cause pain to other beings.

"Well, but what if they threaten my family, the people I love, my livelihood? My personal being? You're just saying 'dude, just let go of it all'?"

No. But in the day to day world, who threatens your family? If you're reading this, chances are you understand English, have a reasonable education, probably work a job, and enjoy a variety of amenities. Who's threatening your family? Oh: Them. Take your pick.

Is it the people who go to mosques and pray to the Abrahamic God but because of the actions of extremists, many people fear, hate and revile?

Is it brown people from parts of the world suffering immense injustice that are overrunning your shores and stealing your jobs?

Is it the liberal? Is it the conservative? Is it the President? Is it North Korea? Tell me, who is threatening your family? Right now. Show me.

No, sir. No one is threatening your family. Yes, there are often policies of indifference to the suffering of others, but many of these "others" you don't care about. But the catch is that these others are you. Their suffering is yours. You may argue that isn't so; but think about it. When you're walking down the street, even in a highly developed country like America, and you see a homeless person, what is your reaction?

If you say, "ugh, just get a job, you lazy parasite", then you are suffering from your own repugnance. At least, it's not apathy. Or maybe you say that thought out loud. Your action proves your discomfort, your certitude and your attachment to your own view that others are unworthy of understanding, comfort or love.

If you say, "ugh, how sad, what's the matter with society", then you suffer from righteous indignation which is useless without action; this in turn, only points to a limited perspective that just descends into sentimentalization of poverty or again, vaporizes into apathy as you walk on by and think of nicer things to do or have.

There is a threat here; to your family, to yourself. It's simply (or not so simply) one's own mind. Mind-in-itself is clear, pure, pristine, luminous. Whence these defilements? Whence this clinging to I, me, mine? It's not enough to say that these defilements have no absolute reality or to go through deconstructing the mental events and observing content. It's really not. No matter how effective I can say such work is, my saying it will do nothing for you.

However, I can respectfully request that assumptions are questioned. If Mr. Fox News or Mr. CNN or anyone says, here's a threat, there's a threat, then you wind up with a variation on "Old MacDonald":

Old MacDonald has a world, 
ee-i-ee-i-o!
and on this world he has a fear,
ee-i-ee-i-o!
and from that fear, he has some threats, 
ee-i-ee-i-o!
with a threat-threat here,
and a threat-threat there, 
here a threat, 
there a threat, 
everywhere a threat-threat...

Poor Old MacDonald; he listens to this rubbish, to the hucksters, and the salesman (advertisers) who profit from his being afraid. They themselves, no doubt, are living in fear, as well.

And no matter how well-informed, ultimately, it is ignorance that keeps humans in thrall to clinging to impermanence, who fabricate definitive selves which they think never change, to lives of slavery to a need to appropriate, to own. There are no relationships in this world; only "my friends" and "your friends" and maybe your friends are my enemies. Or maybe I don't like you because you like this sports team and not mine or you have a better car. Or maybe you don't like me because I vote one way and you hate my party, my candidate, and so on until we have on the madness that is this world.

What happens, though, when we put the brakes on? What happens when there is only listening? Not superficial playing of scripts and scenarios in one's brain, or thinking of a phrase or a mantra or what you will; but genuine space to listen deeply. It is most intimate. It is more real than any thing.

What is its practicality? How is this listening useful? What technique do I need to learn to do this?

That's just it. There's no technique, because this is the most natural activity in our being.

I said earlier that there is a presencing. I think Heidegger would say Being-as-Presence, but there's no need for a phrase, no matter how philosophical or poetic.

There's no need to force the issue; this Presence is never absent. Only when we surrender to the bewitching colors and sounds of the world is there Absence.

The usefulness in this is the untethering of one's constructed self from fear, from clinging out of fear (be it to fear of things, people, events, etc. that either have not happened or will not happen or have only the merest possibility of happening). The usefulness is that "my friends" and "your friends" become one and the same because you are not merely fearless. The absence of fear is the beginning of love.