Thanks for being real about this stuff, Don. I particularly liked these words: "Question everything. Boats are made to rock, even the ones you think are taking you to paradise."
Agreed. I saved that quote and sent it to a couple of friends. We questioned, rocked, and got off the same dogmatic boat together, supposedly on the way to “paradise”.
Hmm...... what if just getting" lost " in something such as PAINTING, CREATING A PLEASING FLOWER ARRANGEMENT, or even writing an effective post, getting " in the zone " is meditation, even if you don't think of it as such ? When I use my under - the - desk exercise device with music I sometimes become meditative.
Self is a slippery subject. I think that we get hung up on it as a form of signpost. We have the Greeks to thank for that, maybe the Egyptians as well. they believed that the soul had 5 components, including our NAMES.
That's one reason that getting off of the internet for at least a couple of hours every day - not counting sleep !- is a GOOD thing. So many people stay connected almost 24 hours a day. that's NOT healthy for emotional health or physical health, certainly not for " spiritual " health.
Don, Nicely done. In my growth, I often tell myself now or today, as in 'today I see it this way, maybe I will see it differently later'. I believe that as we grow, our ability to understand grows. At least that is where I am today. D
I am still befuddled by the Buddhist concept of "non-self." My experience--living in this particular body and this particular mind and heart--is that some experiences of "self" seem to be separate from other people's experiences of "self," but there are also several times in my life when I have experienced this union/communion with "all things." Sometimes this happens in nature, sometimes when I am part of a group/community, sometimes just when I sit alone in solitude.
As a psych major, self is very much an aspect that exists to us and that has been studied. I am confused what "non-self," then, means.
And I appreciate the example you used about the harmful tropes many of us have heard about "hey, your faith just isn't strong enough" as the impetus for some to seek more spiritual retreats and read more spiritual books.
I personally have come to the conclusion that it's impossible for me to ever "attain" any sort of spiritual destination. I have to accept that there is far more mystery than what I will ever understand or comprehend. And in surrendering to that, it doesn't mean I am less drawn to the esoteric questions or spiritual growth. In fact, it means I am more drawn to these, because I want to be a seeker and a pilgrim as long as I'm alive.
Thank you always for getting the wheels in my head to think in a new way, my friend!
I love your acceptance of “surrendering to the mystery,” Jeannie! You are very wise. 🙏
I remember when I was befuddled by “non-self,” thinking that I needed to be more skilled at abstract thinking. But then when I finally started to see, I saw that I was looking at it wrong. Partly, my belief that the concept was abstract and elusive was what kept me from understanding. The other obstacle was that it’s always much harder to understand a concept that someone else is telling you about than to understand something that you simple see for yourself, on your own.
I would love the opportunity to try to verbalize my understanding of non-self as simply as the concept actually is:
If you cut open your brain or any other part of you, you would see that there is no “you” in there; there’s just a bunch of mushy stuff. That’s because “you” is a thought process, not a “thing.”
That’s really all there is to it! It’s not spiritual and it has nothing to do with the body. The body that looks like what people have come to know as Jeannie Ewing is very real; there is no question as to its existence. It’s the abstract represented by “Jeannie” that is only made to seem real by your thoughts, and in other people’s minds, by their thoughts; that is what they mean by “non-self”—the ideas that exist in our minds that we group together and think of as “I”.
That collection of ideas (and memories and dreams and feelings) is the thing that makes it seem like we’re more than just organic assemblages of parts that move around and make noise and do, think, and feel things.
Without our thoughts we would just be like trees or jellyfish, right? So, therefore, our thoughts ARE this thing we call “self.”
I compare self to a song. It’s only real when it’s being sung, when it’s in motion. When you stop singing, the song reveals its true nature; non-song.
Thanks, Don, for this thoughtful explanation of “non-self!” It sounds very much like philosophy to me—a philosophical perspective.
I am now wondering, since you mentioned thoughts…what about the human soul, or existence of a soul? I believe in that. I believe that there is a part of us that connects with the divine, with eternity, and I also believe it is where our emotions are centered and stored. Do you have any additional thoughts about that? :)
I never studied philosophy; never even took a single class! I don't know why. I think my low self-esteem when I was younger had me convinced the subject was for "smart" people. If I only knew back then how smart I was hahaha!
I can't talk about the soul because I don't know anything about it. I have chosen—for me mind you!—to not think about existential theories, speculations, or conjecture that must be accepted on faith. Believing in something that no one can actually know is just not something that appeals to me. I like to say that I neither believe nor disbelieve.
Surrendering to the mystery! 💚
(At the same time, I do agree that we are "connected to eternity" because we are made of the same stuff as the universe!)
Don, I do think you are a natural philosopher. A person can carry a particular philosophical worldview without formal education or knowledge about it. I took a logic class in college undergrad as a freshman, though it was a 300 or 400 level class for upperclassmen, and I never once studied our thousand-page textbook. Yet I consistently scored A+ on every exam. I tell you this, because apparently I am a naturally logical person! I didn’t need to know formal theorems. And you don’t, either, to be a philosopher.
I hear you about existentialism. I am particularly interested in the intersection between spirituality/psychology/philosophy. They all seem to overlap to me. :)
So to be technical, one of the core teachings of the Buddha and what set him apart from the Hindu beliefs with which he grew up with, is that there actually isn't a separate 'soul' that journeys from one lifetime to the next. Which doesn't negate that there is an element in human life that connects us with the divine and eternity, as you note. Just that there isn't a solid thing called a 'soul' that reincarnates from one body/life to the next. It's all ephemeral...
Hi Jeannie! That non-self thing can be confounding, and I think it's often conveyed in not-so-helpful ways. Of course we each have a self -- our own bodies, minds, personalities, a lifetime of experiences that make us who we are, which is entirely unique.
The most helpful interpretation I've heard from a Buddhist perspective is one that came from Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh: the teaching of anatta (Sanskrit for no-self or no-soul) is really intended to mean that we are empty of a separate self, that there isn't an "I" that exists without being connected to everything else -- other sentient beings; the earth, water, and air that literally supports our lives, and more. Thich Nhat Hanh used the word "interdependence" to describe this. So it's a bit of a paradox -- these two truths can exist at the same time. Yes, we are 'one,' and yet we're not the same. And yes, that is a great line from a U2 song ; )
That’s so fascinating, Maia! I need to chew on that some more. So basically, the self exists only in relationship with other sentient/living beings? In other words, the individual self needs relationship, needs connection. Am I getting warmer?
I call it The Three Ring Circus, Jeannie. True self/soul, false self/ego, and non-self/awareness. It helps me to think about non-self holding self in awareness. Hope it helps you too!
That’s really interesting, Kelly. I have not heard of it this way. I mean, I guess wayyyyyyyy back when I was in general psych (like, before the year 2000), I learned basic Freudian principles of id/ego/superego. I have not heard of awareness being akin to non-self. That is a fresh angle, and I’ll have to chew on that some more. Thank you!
Nice post! I think this idea of a "permanent enlightened state" is a trap. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Maybe it does. But it doesn't matter. We don't live in "a permanent state." We live in a moment, followed by another moment, followed by another.
This is one of the reasons I don't like the spiritual teacher trope of reciting "that amazing spiritual experience I had." It's sort of like the old guy at the bar reciting his greatest life moment when his high school football team won the championship. It's a fine story to tell. But if you're still living life vicariously through what happened long ago, it's kind of sad.
I don't really care that someone had an amazing spiritual experience 20 years ago. What's happening now? If what happened 20 years ago is affecting what's happening now, then I care about it. But if it's affecting what's happening now, it's more interesting and helpful for me to hear about now than to hear about that amazing experience that happened 20 years ago.
Dan, thank you. And thank you for bringing this up. I actually had some thoughts on this subject last year in response to a comment you made to me.
At some point you commented on my youthful experience on the rocky outcropping when I realized that if I had the power to take my own life, then I had the power to make of my life anything I choose—and that nobody had any real authority over me.
It was an important realization in my life, but one that I never thought of as profound, probably because it just never occurred to me to think of it that way. But something about the day you commented on it—I think you were responding to me saying that I had not ever experienced "enlightenment" and you were reminding me that I had, in fact, experienced it on that rock.
So here's what I'm trying to get to: After you reminded me that that was indeed an experience of enlightenment, I started thinking about how people reinforce their stories by telling them over and over again, probably causing that story to take on more significance, more meaning, than it actually had.
Like the guy who is still telling of his legendary high school touchdown, or the spiritual writer who repeatedly shares his "profound, life-changing" experience (and if he or she is famous enough, then others keep repeating the story). It reaches a point where you can't think of the person without thinking about their "transformation." But I wonder if the original experience was as profound and transforming as the STORY.
I maintain my stance that awakening is gradual, even if some insights stand out over others.
So thanks again, Dan. I really appreciate your ability to hit on the heart of things!
"Awakening is gradual" is a good description of my experience. But for some people, awakening might be described as sudden, coming out of nowhere. Your experience on the rock might be understood (by you) as one step along the path of your "gradual" awakening. Someone else might understand a similar experience as a "sudden, out of the blue" experience, one which made them forever transformed. I think I can understand what's behind both of those descriptions.
However, if someone says "I had this experience on the rock, and because of that experience, I can tell you what my future experience will be," it's likely to stimulate my inner contrarian. "Is that so?" I might ask in a suspicious tone.
"Awakening" is different than "permanently awake." Once I say that a state is "permanent," I'm making a claim about the future. And the future might bring something different. If I insist that "in X way, the future will be just like the present" then I'm closing myself off to possibilities. In that moment, I'm not "awakened" or "awakening." I'm clinging.
Good point, Dan, and I think that’s the problem with terms like “awakening“ (noun) or “enlightenment.“ Their recognized definitions do imply a permanent state.
In regards to the point I was making: As you said, my realization – to me – could have felt sudden and life transforming, or could have felt like one step in a gradual process. I think the point I was making is that my attitude AFTER THE FACT could have more impact on those options than the actual experience. If I was so amazed by my realization that I kept thinking about it and thinking about it and telling about it and telling about it, the story would grow into something huge. Then, if I wrote about it, I could have everyone believing that I had undergone a magical transformation. Then I could tell everyone what led to the transformation, and they could all try to emulate those circumstances so that they too, could have a magical transformation. 🤪
Don, this piece? A scalpel wrapped in a hug. Thank you for cutting through the enlightenment theater with such clarity and warmth. You wrote what a lot of us feel but haven’t given ourselves permission to say out loud: that maybe we’re not broken for not “getting it” in Sanskrit.
Also, thank you for the shout-out! I still stand by what I said: being offended is holy, because it shows you where the ego is clinging to a story. For me, the next move is cultivating what I call the wish of love—this stubborn, raw prayer for someone’s deepest well-being, even when my thoughts scream “they’re mistreating you!” I try to trust the wish more than the story.
Does it always work? No. I still want to lovingly karate-chop certain people in the third eye—with compassion, of course. Like a Zen koan delivered via elbow. (Kidding. Mostly.)
Boats were made to rock—and occasionally to splash a few self-appointed gurus.
Don, today’s meditation hit home for me as I wrestle with how to write about my life over 40 years ago and how it impacts my life today. I subscribed and invited a Buddhist friend to check you out.
This is so helpful and thought-provoking as ever! It's funny because I feel like I do have a pretty good intellectual understanding of 'no-self', and I also have something of a tendency to consider that 'inferior' to a lived experience of it. The language I most identify with is that of the default mode network in the brain, where our ideas and stories about ourselves reside. I know it is possible to transcend the default mode network because I've done it (with the aid of drugs hehe). I remember what it was like and I would love it to happen again, but I'm still living in the default mode network in my day-to-day life. Being intellectually aware of it doesn't mean I can just tinker with it whenever I feel like it. But it has had all sorts of other positive effects, like fuelling my creativity and changing my whole outlook on life and the universe. It would be foolish to dismiss those effects because they're not 'the real thing'. And at the same time I do find myself thinking 'gaah, wouldn't it be great if my default mode network would just cease and desist for a bit!'
All familiar thinking, Kate (except I've never done hallucinogens). I think your default mode belongs to even the most celebrated "enlightened" beings. It's only the fame they've gotten that leads others to believe they live at some higher plane of consciousness. Sometimes I worry that people will think that I live on that plane, haha. (I haven't told any stories lately about my regular day-to-day life. Anger and anxiety and shame. I think it's time. 😊).
I think that "transcending the default mode" is possible without drugs but it just doesn't feel like we might expect it to. For instance, last night I was at a local concert. I had been carrying this mild sense of anxiety with me and it was still there so I was a little distracted. I do try to practice inhabiting rather than resisting my feelings, so I was doing that at the concert when I got a sudden taste of what it feels like to not fragment your mind with resistance. I felt a wholeness. And it wasn't relief from the anxiety, which was still there, it was a sense of being where one would be if they completely knew that their feelings ARE their entire self. It's hard to describe so I won't keep trying (I've been writing in my journal about it this morning.)
Don, on another note, I'm fascinated by the idea presented by Adyashanti, that when one realizes no self the self-relfective mechanism of our mind ceases. I had never heard it described that way before.
Thanks for being real about this stuff, Don. I particularly liked these words: "Question everything. Boats are made to rock, even the ones you think are taking you to paradise."
Thanks, Patrick. 🙏💚
Agreed. I saved that quote and sent it to a couple of friends. We questioned, rocked, and got off the same dogmatic boat together, supposedly on the way to “paradise”.
I second that as a favorite line, Patrick!
Love the phrase ‘media-lubricated world’. I appreciate your perspective on mindfulness. That ego is a sneaky one!
Thanks, Brenda. 🙏💚
Hmm...... what if just getting" lost " in something such as PAINTING, CREATING A PLEASING FLOWER ARRANGEMENT, or even writing an effective post, getting " in the zone " is meditation, even if you don't think of it as such ? When I use my under - the - desk exercise device with music I sometimes become meditative.
Self is a slippery subject. I think that we get hung up on it as a form of signpost. We have the Greeks to thank for that, maybe the Egyptians as well. they believed that the soul had 5 components, including our NAMES.
I believe being in a flow state doing any creative act is one of the most profound ways to connect with the source.
That's one reason that getting off of the internet for at least a couple of hours every day - not counting sleep !- is a GOOD thing. So many people stay connected almost 24 hours a day. that's NOT healthy for emotional health or physical health, certainly not for " spiritual " health.
Don, Nicely done. In my growth, I often tell myself now or today, as in 'today I see it this way, maybe I will see it differently later'. I believe that as we grow, our ability to understand grows. At least that is where I am today. D
Me, too. Thanks, Dave. 🙏💚
One step at a time
And notice where you plant your foot.
We live in Plato's Cave. The flames that throw shadows on cave walls to be mistaken for " reality " are the LCD lights from monitor screens.
I watch online streaming more than I do satellite / cable TV myself.
My wife and son were literally just talking about Plato’s cave. I’m not familiar with it. Time to do a deep dive!
"There is nothing to attain"--just be attentive to here and now.
Agreed! Thanks, Marilyn. 🙏💚
A great reminder to not take myself, or my practice too seriously. 🙏🏻
Hey Don,
You got me thinking, as usual...
I am still befuddled by the Buddhist concept of "non-self." My experience--living in this particular body and this particular mind and heart--is that some experiences of "self" seem to be separate from other people's experiences of "self," but there are also several times in my life when I have experienced this union/communion with "all things." Sometimes this happens in nature, sometimes when I am part of a group/community, sometimes just when I sit alone in solitude.
As a psych major, self is very much an aspect that exists to us and that has been studied. I am confused what "non-self," then, means.
And I appreciate the example you used about the harmful tropes many of us have heard about "hey, your faith just isn't strong enough" as the impetus for some to seek more spiritual retreats and read more spiritual books.
I personally have come to the conclusion that it's impossible for me to ever "attain" any sort of spiritual destination. I have to accept that there is far more mystery than what I will ever understand or comprehend. And in surrendering to that, it doesn't mean I am less drawn to the esoteric questions or spiritual growth. In fact, it means I am more drawn to these, because I want to be a seeker and a pilgrim as long as I'm alive.
Thank you always for getting the wheels in my head to think in a new way, my friend!
I love your acceptance of “surrendering to the mystery,” Jeannie! You are very wise. 🙏
I remember when I was befuddled by “non-self,” thinking that I needed to be more skilled at abstract thinking. But then when I finally started to see, I saw that I was looking at it wrong. Partly, my belief that the concept was abstract and elusive was what kept me from understanding. The other obstacle was that it’s always much harder to understand a concept that someone else is telling you about than to understand something that you simple see for yourself, on your own.
I would love the opportunity to try to verbalize my understanding of non-self as simply as the concept actually is:
If you cut open your brain or any other part of you, you would see that there is no “you” in there; there’s just a bunch of mushy stuff. That’s because “you” is a thought process, not a “thing.”
That’s really all there is to it! It’s not spiritual and it has nothing to do with the body. The body that looks like what people have come to know as Jeannie Ewing is very real; there is no question as to its existence. It’s the abstract represented by “Jeannie” that is only made to seem real by your thoughts, and in other people’s minds, by their thoughts; that is what they mean by “non-self”—the ideas that exist in our minds that we group together and think of as “I”.
That collection of ideas (and memories and dreams and feelings) is the thing that makes it seem like we’re more than just organic assemblages of parts that move around and make noise and do, think, and feel things.
Without our thoughts we would just be like trees or jellyfish, right? So, therefore, our thoughts ARE this thing we call “self.”
I compare self to a song. It’s only real when it’s being sung, when it’s in motion. When you stop singing, the song reveals its true nature; non-song.
Thanks, Don, for this thoughtful explanation of “non-self!” It sounds very much like philosophy to me—a philosophical perspective.
I am now wondering, since you mentioned thoughts…what about the human soul, or existence of a soul? I believe in that. I believe that there is a part of us that connects with the divine, with eternity, and I also believe it is where our emotions are centered and stored. Do you have any additional thoughts about that? :)
I never studied philosophy; never even took a single class! I don't know why. I think my low self-esteem when I was younger had me convinced the subject was for "smart" people. If I only knew back then how smart I was hahaha!
I can't talk about the soul because I don't know anything about it. I have chosen—for me mind you!—to not think about existential theories, speculations, or conjecture that must be accepted on faith. Believing in something that no one can actually know is just not something that appeals to me. I like to say that I neither believe nor disbelieve.
Surrendering to the mystery! 💚
(At the same time, I do agree that we are "connected to eternity" because we are made of the same stuff as the universe!)
Don, I do think you are a natural philosopher. A person can carry a particular philosophical worldview without formal education or knowledge about it. I took a logic class in college undergrad as a freshman, though it was a 300 or 400 level class for upperclassmen, and I never once studied our thousand-page textbook. Yet I consistently scored A+ on every exam. I tell you this, because apparently I am a naturally logical person! I didn’t need to know formal theorems. And you don’t, either, to be a philosopher.
I hear you about existentialism. I am particularly interested in the intersection between spirituality/psychology/philosophy. They all seem to overlap to me. :)
So to be technical, one of the core teachings of the Buddha and what set him apart from the Hindu beliefs with which he grew up with, is that there actually isn't a separate 'soul' that journeys from one lifetime to the next. Which doesn't negate that there is an element in human life that connects us with the divine and eternity, as you note. Just that there isn't a solid thing called a 'soul' that reincarnates from one body/life to the next. It's all ephemeral...
Ok thank you for clarifying that for me, Maia!
Hi Jeannie! That non-self thing can be confounding, and I think it's often conveyed in not-so-helpful ways. Of course we each have a self -- our own bodies, minds, personalities, a lifetime of experiences that make us who we are, which is entirely unique.
The most helpful interpretation I've heard from a Buddhist perspective is one that came from Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh: the teaching of anatta (Sanskrit for no-self or no-soul) is really intended to mean that we are empty of a separate self, that there isn't an "I" that exists without being connected to everything else -- other sentient beings; the earth, water, and air that literally supports our lives, and more. Thich Nhat Hanh used the word "interdependence" to describe this. So it's a bit of a paradox -- these two truths can exist at the same time. Yes, we are 'one,' and yet we're not the same. And yes, that is a great line from a U2 song ; )
That’s so fascinating, Maia! I need to chew on that some more. So basically, the self exists only in relationship with other sentient/living beings? In other words, the individual self needs relationship, needs connection. Am I getting warmer?
warmer! hot, even!!!
This is a lot to wade through, but if you're interested in reading words directly from TNH, this is a good dharma talk on this subject: https://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Buddhism/G%20-%20TNH/TNH/The%20Sutras%20on%20Dependent%20Co-arising%20and%20Great%20Emptiness/Dharma%20Talk%20given%20by%20Thich%20Nhat%20Hanh%20on%20March%2019.htm
Great! I appreciate that and will bookmark it for later, Maia. Thank you.
I call it The Three Ring Circus, Jeannie. True self/soul, false self/ego, and non-self/awareness. It helps me to think about non-self holding self in awareness. Hope it helps you too!
That’s really interesting, Kelly. I have not heard of it this way. I mean, I guess wayyyyyyyy back when I was in general psych (like, before the year 2000), I learned basic Freudian principles of id/ego/superego. I have not heard of awareness being akin to non-self. That is a fresh angle, and I’ll have to chew on that some more. Thank you!
I’m glad to hear it’s fodder for reflection!
Nice post! I think this idea of a "permanent enlightened state" is a trap. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Maybe it does. But it doesn't matter. We don't live in "a permanent state." We live in a moment, followed by another moment, followed by another.
This is one of the reasons I don't like the spiritual teacher trope of reciting "that amazing spiritual experience I had." It's sort of like the old guy at the bar reciting his greatest life moment when his high school football team won the championship. It's a fine story to tell. But if you're still living life vicariously through what happened long ago, it's kind of sad.
I don't really care that someone had an amazing spiritual experience 20 years ago. What's happening now? If what happened 20 years ago is affecting what's happening now, then I care about it. But if it's affecting what's happening now, it's more interesting and helpful for me to hear about now than to hear about that amazing experience that happened 20 years ago.
Dan, thank you. And thank you for bringing this up. I actually had some thoughts on this subject last year in response to a comment you made to me.
At some point you commented on my youthful experience on the rocky outcropping when I realized that if I had the power to take my own life, then I had the power to make of my life anything I choose—and that nobody had any real authority over me.
It was an important realization in my life, but one that I never thought of as profound, probably because it just never occurred to me to think of it that way. But something about the day you commented on it—I think you were responding to me saying that I had not ever experienced "enlightenment" and you were reminding me that I had, in fact, experienced it on that rock.
So here's what I'm trying to get to: After you reminded me that that was indeed an experience of enlightenment, I started thinking about how people reinforce their stories by telling them over and over again, probably causing that story to take on more significance, more meaning, than it actually had.
Like the guy who is still telling of his legendary high school touchdown, or the spiritual writer who repeatedly shares his "profound, life-changing" experience (and if he or she is famous enough, then others keep repeating the story). It reaches a point where you can't think of the person without thinking about their "transformation." But I wonder if the original experience was as profound and transforming as the STORY.
I maintain my stance that awakening is gradual, even if some insights stand out over others.
So thanks again, Dan. I really appreciate your ability to hit on the heart of things!
"Awakening is gradual" is a good description of my experience. But for some people, awakening might be described as sudden, coming out of nowhere. Your experience on the rock might be understood (by you) as one step along the path of your "gradual" awakening. Someone else might understand a similar experience as a "sudden, out of the blue" experience, one which made them forever transformed. I think I can understand what's behind both of those descriptions.
However, if someone says "I had this experience on the rock, and because of that experience, I can tell you what my future experience will be," it's likely to stimulate my inner contrarian. "Is that so?" I might ask in a suspicious tone.
"Awakening" is different than "permanently awake." Once I say that a state is "permanent," I'm making a claim about the future. And the future might bring something different. If I insist that "in X way, the future will be just like the present" then I'm closing myself off to possibilities. In that moment, I'm not "awakened" or "awakening." I'm clinging.
Good point, Dan, and I think that’s the problem with terms like “awakening“ (noun) or “enlightenment.“ Their recognized definitions do imply a permanent state.
In regards to the point I was making: As you said, my realization – to me – could have felt sudden and life transforming, or could have felt like one step in a gradual process. I think the point I was making is that my attitude AFTER THE FACT could have more impact on those options than the actual experience. If I was so amazed by my realization that I kept thinking about it and thinking about it and telling about it and telling about it, the story would grow into something huge. Then, if I wrote about it, I could have everyone believing that I had undergone a magical transformation. Then I could tell everyone what led to the transformation, and they could all try to emulate those circumstances so that they too, could have a magical transformation. 🤪
I agree. And I think it trips up a lot of people. I know it tripped me up.
I think this is why I like verbs way more than nouns! Nouns fix things in place, verbs are ever-evolving. As are we. Or we should be, anyway!
Don, this piece? A scalpel wrapped in a hug. Thank you for cutting through the enlightenment theater with such clarity and warmth. You wrote what a lot of us feel but haven’t given ourselves permission to say out loud: that maybe we’re not broken for not “getting it” in Sanskrit.
Also, thank you for the shout-out! I still stand by what I said: being offended is holy, because it shows you where the ego is clinging to a story. For me, the next move is cultivating what I call the wish of love—this stubborn, raw prayer for someone’s deepest well-being, even when my thoughts scream “they’re mistreating you!” I try to trust the wish more than the story.
Does it always work? No. I still want to lovingly karate-chop certain people in the third eye—with compassion, of course. Like a Zen koan delivered via elbow. (Kidding. Mostly.)
Boats were made to rock—and occasionally to splash a few self-appointed gurus.
—Virgin Monk Boy 🌀
Thank you, Aleksander! 💚
"A scalpel wrapped in a hug." If that doesn’t capture Don’s writing, I don’t know what does. Well said, Aleksander!
Love this insight, thanks Don.
Don, today’s meditation hit home for me as I wrestle with how to write about my life over 40 years ago and how it impacts my life today. I subscribed and invited a Buddhist friend to check you out.
Thank you so much, Kathi! Did you mean to subscribe for the paid level? If so, I’m thrilled and incredibly grateful! 🙏💚
Yes, you have a new paid sub!
You’re the best, Kathi, thank you so much! 🙏💚
So good 😊
Thanks Paolo!
Yeah… I dig this. I get it. Thanks Don:)
Thanks, Taft! 🙏💚
This is so helpful and thought-provoking as ever! It's funny because I feel like I do have a pretty good intellectual understanding of 'no-self', and I also have something of a tendency to consider that 'inferior' to a lived experience of it. The language I most identify with is that of the default mode network in the brain, where our ideas and stories about ourselves reside. I know it is possible to transcend the default mode network because I've done it (with the aid of drugs hehe). I remember what it was like and I would love it to happen again, but I'm still living in the default mode network in my day-to-day life. Being intellectually aware of it doesn't mean I can just tinker with it whenever I feel like it. But it has had all sorts of other positive effects, like fuelling my creativity and changing my whole outlook on life and the universe. It would be foolish to dismiss those effects because they're not 'the real thing'. And at the same time I do find myself thinking 'gaah, wouldn't it be great if my default mode network would just cease and desist for a bit!'
All familiar thinking, Kate (except I've never done hallucinogens). I think your default mode belongs to even the most celebrated "enlightened" beings. It's only the fame they've gotten that leads others to believe they live at some higher plane of consciousness. Sometimes I worry that people will think that I live on that plane, haha. (I haven't told any stories lately about my regular day-to-day life. Anger and anxiety and shame. I think it's time. 😊).
I think that "transcending the default mode" is possible without drugs but it just doesn't feel like we might expect it to. For instance, last night I was at a local concert. I had been carrying this mild sense of anxiety with me and it was still there so I was a little distracted. I do try to practice inhabiting rather than resisting my feelings, so I was doing that at the concert when I got a sudden taste of what it feels like to not fragment your mind with resistance. I felt a wholeness. And it wasn't relief from the anxiety, which was still there, it was a sense of being where one would be if they completely knew that their feelings ARE their entire self. It's hard to describe so I won't keep trying (I've been writing in my journal about it this morning.)
Don, on another note, I'm fascinated by the idea presented by Adyashanti, that when one realizes no self the self-relfective mechanism of our mind ceases. I had never heard it described that way before.