Astrologer quote on activating potential

A friend sent me a quote from Grant Lewi, an astrologer, that I am passing along:

It is not limitations that eat out the heart, but inaction, the knowledge of powers not used, the sense of having failed to develop to the utmost. The overcoming of fate is not the overcoming of limitations: that is impossible. It is the exercise of free will, the assertion of the full self, expanding to its utmost with the tools at hand, in the circumstances that are set.

To me that awakens associations of potential, which sometimes sounds like a terrible word to me. I feel like it refers to great things that have not yet been done. As I have often been considered by others, and my self, as someone with 'potential'... I hope to ditch 'potential' and start asserting more of my full self, whatever that may look/feel/act like...

Just don't hold your breath, developmentally I have never been a speedy Gonzalez : )

Spirituality is kind of banal... and TNH on knots

It's funny, almost no matter what hobby or passion you have you will find that someone has written an article of how [insert your passion or hobby here] is spiritual. Usually these kind of articles, books and blog entries flourish when said hobby or passion is trendy. I remember seeing articles on golf being spiritual and all the reasons it was like meditation, as well as fishing, knitting, washing dishes and other extreme sports... Another rash of more recent articles have been written on spirituality and surfing. How it is about being one with nature, putting your ego aside, operating in the present, being in the here and now, et cetera et cetera. Soon maybe we will see articles that suggest that spirituality is like... spirituality : )

Some of these articles are stretching it a bit but I guess the point is that spirituality can show up anywhere you look for it. As Nisargadatta Maharaj said (or said something like) you won't find what you are looking for by digging shallow holes all over the place; instead pick a spot, any spot, and dig deep.

Still and always reading Peace is Every Step by Thich Nhat Hanh (I'm taking peace slowly in small steps : ))...

A great chapter in this little book, which strangely enough seems a lot bigger than it actually is (which is probably a good sign, although I am not sure of what), is called "Internal Formations" (page 64 in my paperback version). In it he speaks about the formation of "knots". Basically, every trauma, no matter how big or little can create a knot. If you are insulted, or feel slighted or hurt, or embarassed by someone's behavior ... (you get the point) he suggests that this creates a small knot. By not being aware of the knot, by not immediately working to untie it, it becomes tighter and tighter until it can become impossible to untie. The idea being, for couples especially but also for friends and in working relationships to 1/be aware of the formation of the knot and 2/work to untie it sooner rather than later. This can be done by talking about it with the person in question or through meditation.

In his words, "the absence of clear understanding is the basis for every knot." The knots need "our full attention as soon as they form, while they are still weak, so that the work of transformation is easy."

The work of 'knot awareness' (my phrase not his) means being aware of small knots that form. Some clues to this can be found by pursuing the following questions (or similar questions):

• why did I feel uncomfortable when I heard him say ...?
• why did I say ... to him?
• why didn't I like that character in the movie?
• why do I always think of ... when I meet ...?

Obviously, I guess, although TNH does not mention this specifically, the objective is to attain some form of spiritual progress in which you stop making knots or, maybe, in which you tease those two little strings apart before they actually get intertwined. Personally, I have had the feeling that the truly spiritual are not only impervious to insults (i.e. masters of knot avoidance) but are also indifferent to compliments (step 2 in spiritual mastery?) as the ego knows what it is worth (or not) by then... Tout un programme (~quite the program) as the French would say...

This idea of knot formation reminds me a lot of bioenergetics and somatics (among others), i.e. disciplines of psychotherapy that believe in the body-mind connection in the sense that the body harbors all of our 'emotional traumas' real and imagined in the body, like a squirrel gathering acorns. These emotional hurts go somewhere, can build up into real blockages and until they are released (worked on) it affects both the body and the mind. But that is well beyond the scope of this little blog, so I will end on that aside.

Have a wonderful weekend.

[Thoughts on] Eat, Pray and Love

So I am reading Eat, Pray and Love by Elizabeth Gilbert and besides how much I enjoy her writing style and the content of what she writes, I find it is also a wonderful spiritual primer. The one thing with spirituality is that it is such a personal endeavor for most of us that it is hard to compare notes with others. There are things that I was sure were personal issues or shortcomings that I needed to deal with and this little book has given me a lot of perspective on that. Most of these 'issues' are faced by everyone, in varying degrees, and I (really) didn't realize it.

One (of many) great passage in the book (page 138 in the paperback edition I'm reading), Gilbert says, "I don't think I'm good at meditation... I can't seem to keep my mind still." The monk she is complaining to answers, "It's a pity that you're the only person in the history of the world who ever had this problem."

While that seems quite silly and evident, it is true that I don't think I'm good at meditation either... and I can't seem to keep my mind still too. And that has been an excuse for me for not really trying. While it makes me smile to read her adventures in this domain, it also inspires me and gives me a necessary kick in the butt. I have read alot, I keep reading alot, but do I try to stop and apply some of the things I have read? Nooooooo...

Another great part of this book, which really spoke to me was a section in which she decides that she is going to become silent. She tells of a spiritual fantasy in which she becomes a silent mystical saint that people admire for her silence. Without going into the book's details, she is then reassigned a job at her Ashram in which she will have to speak all day. She goes on to recount a favorite statement of her guru's guru: God dwells in you, as you.

She explains this as 'God dwells within you as yourself, exactly the way you are.' Spirituality is not acting like the image you have of a spiritual person. No 'massive, dramatic, change of character' is necessary, there is no need to 'renounce our individuality.' The guru's guru then adds, "To know God you only need to renounce one thing -- your sense of division from God. Otherwise, just stay as you were made, within your natural character."

Once again, not a life-shattering insight, but to me, for me, this is a very important insight/reminder. I have various and varying images of what a spiritual person might look and act like (chief among them is my image of St. Francis), but that is (sigh) not who I am. And that is ok. I guess I need to learn to accept that it is ok to 'work within my own personality' as Gilbert coins it. She, drives the home point with a quote from Sextus, a Greek philosopher, "The wise man is always similar to himself."

Sometimes you find spirituality in the most unexpected places -- even in an Oprah-recommended, NY Times bestseller -- and this book is as enjoyable as it is thought-provoking or, rather, life-provoking. Gilbert's inquiries and adventures make me want to say yes to life more wholly (holy) and find the spirituality which is me and the me which is spiritual...

Hopefully the feeling will last beyond the last page.

Sitting at a sidewalk cafe...

Yesterday I was sitting at a sidewalk cafe having a cup of coffee and reading a book. At some point someone stopped in front of me.

I looked up and saw a woman of indeterminate age (was she 40 looking like 60, 60 looking like 60, or, most probably 50) standing there and apparently talking to me. I say apparently because I was listening to music on my iPod and could only see her lips moving. Based on her dress, demeanor and the fact that she was holding her hand out at me, I realized quite quickly that she was a beggar. I looked up without hearing a word of what she had to say, I flashed her a quick plastic smile and went back to reading.

She just stayed there and apparently kept on talking. Darn, strategy number one (ignore) and two (smile and ignore) had failed. I tried strategy number three, I looked up, smiled, and spread my arms and shrugged my shoulders trying to convey 'sorry I can't help you'. She remained and kept on talking. So I took off my earphones and looked up to hear what she had to say. Doing so I looked more closely at the woman: she had natty hair (rasta style but without the style), an old dress, and the worst teeth I have seen in a long time. Black, twisted teeth, wasted teeth. And what was she saying, in broken French with a Spanish-Italian-Portuguese accent (not sure which) it sounded like 'sorry but could you spare some money for a coffee, I drink too much coffee and if I don't drink coffee I get a bad headache.' She then patted her head, as if she was saying 'my poor head' and smiled again.

She said it in a non-aggressive and somewhat apologetic manner. For some reason I thought it was cute and thought, what the heck, she doesn't look like she is going to buy alcohol or drugs with it. She probably really just wants a coffee. As I was digging for some change in my pocket she flashed me a smile and that is when I noticed her eyes. Brown eyes, standard in that department, but extremely lively, friendly and young! The splendor, sparkle and youth in her eyes was in such contrast to all the rest I couldn't believe it. The hardship that her body, hair and hygiene were communicating were nowhere to be found in her eyes. It really was surreal. 

I finally found some money and gave it to her and her entire face lit up like a little girl on Christmas morning. She took a few steps and then turned around and smiled at me again, nodded, said 'may God bless you' and then walked slowly around the corner - out of my view and, undoubtedly, life.

I couldn't stop thinking about her eyes. It is difficult to convey but it was surreal - the book and the cover were telling such completely different stories that I was left wondering who she really was and what had really just happened...

[Osho on...] Nonchoosing

I felt like I needed to revisit Osho's The Book of Secrets (what a great name, which shows simple insight into human nature, I mean who could resist reading a book with a name like that?!). The book has been on my bedstand for years and I haven't read it for... years. And I only read selected chapters here and there the first time around...

Anyway, I opened up the book to a random page, and it turns out I had already read it as several parts were already underlined in pencil (an old habit of mine that I apparently inherited from my mom). The book's format is very much 'guru-like' as many spiritual books are, i.e. visitors or disciples ask questions and Osho answers and a scribe writes all of this down for posterity.

While the chapter is officially about tantric sex, the themes that run through it are actually about surrendering, denial, extremes, the middle path, acceptance, choosing, goals and (behind it all) the how of living your life. Quite a lineup.

To simplify the message, Osho basically says that choosing one path is equivalent to denial of at least one other. Choosing nonviolence is equivalent to denial of violence, and "the moment you deny, you have accepted the extreme path." He adds, "two extremes, howsoever opposite, are parts of one whole - two aspects of one thing. If you choose one you have chosen the other also." (This reminds me, for some reason, of all those politicians who go on moral crusades and always seem to get caught later in some form of moral breakdown.)

For Osho, acceptance of the universe we live in, or "accepting the total life" is the middle path. "Acceptance of totality is to be automatically in the middle." You are neither for or against something, "you are just floating in the stream."

The idea, which is a Tantric principle, is called the 'deep let-go'. When you are choosing, you are not letting go, and that means that ego is operating. Osho states the principle as "when you choose, you are moving against the whole universe". Instead of going with the universal flow you are allowing your own wants, desires, fears to resist the flow.

Osho uses a nice image, which John Donne may or may not be in agreement with:

When you choose, you are not choosing the universal flow: you are standing aloof, isolated; you are like an island. You are trying to be yourself against the whole flux of life.

If choosing is not the way, then it will not be too surprising to you to hear (read) that nonchoosing is the way. Basically, still using the river metaphor that Buddhists and many spiritual others use quite often, nonchoosing is about not deciding where life is going but allowing life to move, allowing life to take you with it, and this without a fixed goal.

While I understand about choosing, and that choosing implies denial of something or moving against something, and that all movement against implies a movement towards etc etc, I have a hard time swallowing the living without a goal idea. Actually more than having a hard time swallowing it, I think the idea scares the heck out of me. Having goals is such a part of our society and such a big part of how I think that living without a goal sounds like jumping out of a plane without a parachute! Short-term, medium-term, long-term goals, academic goals, professional goals, personal goals, relationship goals, family goals, savings goals, spending goals, sport goals, reading goals, language goals, travel goals, lofty goals, material goals, spiritual goals - they are everywhere in my life. Who would I be without my precious goals and to-do lists? While many people seem to define themselves in part by their achievements, maybe I define myself (at least in part) by my goals... Something for me to think about.

In any case, Osho is not very ambiguous about who is at fault here, and unfortunately he is probably right (and don't worry, he was talking to me when he said this ; )):

Your ego point is the problem, because of it you create problems. There are no problems in life itself; existence is problemless. You are the problem and you are the creator of the problem, and you create problems out of everything. [...] This nonsurrendering of ego is the source of all problems.

But, the solution is also as clear: "once you accept life in its totality things start happening, because this total acceptance frees you from the ego point."

Let's put that on our to-do lists : )

It's not what you do...

Hi,

I read an interesting story in the New York Times the other day that got me thinking. It was about a hiker that went out into the wilderness on his own without telling anyone where he had gone (kind of like 'Into the Wild' for those who saw the film). From some strange twist of fate he managed to find himself trapped by a boulder. Actually an 800-pound boulder rolled onto his hand. There was no way to get his hand out from under it and there was no way anyone would find him. So he tied a tourniquet around his wrist and sawed off his own hand to get free. Pretty incredible. Now he is being paid big bucks to tell his story around the US to businesses and children, about will, survival, etc.

Reading a little bit about what he has to say about the experience is quite interesting. He came to some interesting 'conclusions' and insights while stuck under his boulder. He says he decided to live. Or rather he understood that he was going to die but decided that it would not be that day and not by that boulder (which reminds me of the great James Bond title 'Die Another Day').

I don't think we realize how strong an insight that is. An insight that connects to a film I saw the other day, Synecdoche New York, by Charlie Kaufman. The film was very dark, and very much about how we are all hurtling towards our deaths, but each one of us secretly hopes that we will be the exception...

Knowing that we are going to die, really knowing it, makes us realize that we are ephemeral and that there is nothing we can do about it. It should probably allow us to be less attached, to take things in stride, to make light of things we sometimes take seriously (like that idiot that cut you off in his car), to have a more buddhist-like approach to death, etc.

Personally I know this, I read this, I just wrote this, and yet I forget it often. But when I do remember it, it is liberating... Now if I could really just integrate it into who I am.

Which leads quite well into the second major insight our lone hiker had. A bit of background is necessary to explain the insight. The hiker in question had moved away from a big city to Colorado in order to be faithful to who he was - an outdoorsman. He decided that it was important in life to do what you love and thus he moved to a place where he could do just that. But that was not the insight, au contraire! As seductive as that may be - do what you love - his insight was quite different actually. While under his rock (his book, coming out soon, is called Under a Rock and a Hard Place - not bad), he came to an interesting insight. [Slight digression: one awful thing about having done anything more than a minimal amount of 'spiritual' reading is that you can never claim ignorance. Every insight I see or hear, I have almost certainly read somewhere already. But reading is not 'getting' and sometimes you read or hear or experience things in a different way and only then do you really 'get' it.] Anyway, while under his rock, he realized that moving to Colorado did allow him to do what he loved. BUT, he also realized that he still and always defined himself by what he does. And his insight, in my own words, was that it is all about 'how you are'. It is not what you do that defines who you are, but how you are which defines who you are.

This last insight has got me thinking. While that thinking has been going on for a few days and so it would be hard to share in its entirety, one of the areas I have been thinking about is 'what you do'. And putting together the two insights shared by our hiker, it makes me rethink the importance of choosing what you do. Apparently it is less important than what I thought. What is most important is 'how you are'. And 'how you are' implies, to me, how you are with others. And that implies relationships - very close, close, not so close - and maybe how you are in each of those is what it is all about. Hmm.