Pattern Interruption Non-News has no informational value, just potential experiential value. [Food-for-thought, by definition, comes with indigestion. If food-for-thought goes down easy, it's not food-for-thought but just brain-candy.]
I write this freely, unafraid of self-contradiction. And I encourage you to read this blog with the same attitude of interpretive freedom.
Walt Whitman: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large: I contain multitudes.
Monday, May 10, 2010 Governors of Air, we debate whether to inhale or exhale.
Breathlessly blissful, we laugh at this dilemma,
Not minding our bodies below who depend on our decisions.
Ha!
Saturday, March 27, 2010 Poem (by Charlene Balcom, Reflections/Shadows on the Shoji/Hokuseido Press, 1936):
As you reached into the lotus pond,
I saw the reflection
Of a young willow
Trailing slender branches
In the water.
Poetic Interpretation:
Lotus pond is post-Narcissism, it reflects no ego: when you look into the lotus pond of your consciousness, no Narcissus looks back; when you look into the lotus pond of your consciousness, you see no mind or any informational "self," for that matter, just the "trailing slender branches" of Reality nearby.
Any reflections in the lotus pond are mind-projections…
Resources:
Lotus Effect: Shedding Suffering and Rediscovering Your Essential Self (release: Fall 2010)
Sunday, March 21, 2010 Tap, tap, triple-tap, not enough palms to clap, not enough heels to walk…
Neti-Neti* Knee knows not where to walk, so it walks not-knowing…
In between the dunes of sand or snow, knowing Nothing but One thing-less thing:
Whatever walkabout is about, no matter how infinite the diameter, a dervish ain’t a dervish.
Thus, un-wind, Wind!
Sands of time witness you pass, zig-zag-ing between Form and Essence…
Been there-here, done/undone this-that.
Your turn: spin!
Your web of interpretation catches nothing but word-fish...
So is mine, so is mine...
pavel, the writer-reader, on a walkabout about what he ain't...
*"neti, neti" - an Upanishadic saying - translates from Sanskrit as "not this, not that" - an apophatic assertion of about identity (that in saying nothing, says nothing false)
Wednesday, February 24, 2010 In you
the essence of reality distorts its own form.
In you
the essence of reality corrects it.
Infinitely...
10...9...8...7... 6...
you know how it ends: either in 1 or 0.
Same digital oneness.
After all, essence is still dynamically form, and form is still always essence...
proof-reading is moot: I'll never read this as if I had never written it.
Reality is unedited...
and so are you... and so are you me...
Who am I? Who are you?
5 stanzas - one Un-punctuated space of consciousness in between
Ellipses is but a punctuation symbol that reminds us of the emptiness that eclipses us...
Zen, buddhism, consciousness, dzogchen, ellipses, essence, form, identity, oneness, punctuation Friday, December 18, 2009 Context:
Avatar is a Hindu term that originally means an appearance, a manifestation of a deity in a visible form, an embodiment of the ideal.
Philosophically, the term Avatar could be understood as synonymous with Form (form-based manifestation of Essence).
Psychologically, the term Avatar, in my opinion, is interchangeable with the concept of Self (as in "public self" or "persona" that we project into the world as a manifestation of what/who we internally are; or as our own, inner "self-view," an in-house informational representation of ourselves to ourselves, a "self-schema").
Now, my point of the moment:
1.
Let me ask you something.
While living this very life, would you - as if in some kind of virtual reality - like to be an Avatar?
2.
The question above is rhetorical:
If you think of yourself as some kind of self-form, you already are your own manifestation.
3.
The real, non-rhetorical question is: what is this essence that you are representing right now with such words as "I" and "me?" Who is this who is reading this and thinking "I am?" What is this essence that keeps confusing itself with its informational avatar of self-narrative?