Book Download: Free PDF

The free downloadable copy of my book is available again. I apologize to anyone who tried to download it but couldn't. I have changed file hosting sites and expect no future problems. However, if you wish to download the book and have trouble, do not hesitate to contact me. I'll be happy to email a copy directly to you.

Jim

The Contradiction of Existence

In Chapter 2, I talk about The Constants. They are the qualities of experience that are always present, regardless of what that experience is. They are the foundational qualities of reality itself. Among them are that 1) All experiences occur in the present moment, and 2) All experiences occur in the present location: Here. In fact, these two ideas are really just one, since the present moment, Now, is really Here, just in a temporal sense. In other words, with the future ahead, and the past behind, you are right here in the present.

All things are contained in the Here and Now. You may see something happening "over there" but it is experienced with you, right here. More specifically, the light and sound waves from the event must come to you to take the form of an experience, and since experience is the boundary of our reality, there's no escaping this locality of all phenomena. The same is true for all things occurring in the Now. The past is just an idea in your mind, that you are having now. So is the future. They are no different than any other daydream, and they can occur at no other time than the present.

The thing of it is, the present moment really doesn't exist in any quantifiable way. It's nothing but a dimensionless point, separating past from future. If you drew a timeline from one hour ago to one hour from now, you could not identify any segment of the line as the present. You could magnify the line infinitely, and you would still only find a dimensionless point of separation. Even a nanosecond could straddle it, with half in the past and half yet to be. And any attempt to grasp that point would be thwarted, as it would slip into the past before you could even begin to perceive it.

The same is true of the other three dimensions of spacetime. Here is nothing more than a point dividing forward from backward, above from below, left from right. There's no identifiable place called Here. Here and Now, the location of all existence, is just like the origin on a Cartesian graph. It's merely theoretical, a point in space with no substance.

This apparent contradiction, of all existence not actually existing, is, I believe, a problem at the very heart of seeing things for what they truly are, and it must be resolved in order find the greater Truth of existence.

Jim

Planting Seeds

Life has always been an uncertain and scary occupation. There have always been natural disasters, acts of violence and cruelty, illness and death. Bad things have always happened at the worst possible time. However, I think that today, we are exposed to more fear and horror than ever before, and it is having its effect. While we live in an age when people live longer, healthier lives, in a world with more luxuries, opportunities, knowledge, and choice than ever before, we tend to believe that things are actually getting worse.

I think this has a lot to do with what we allow to capture our attention.

Your attention is always on something. And it's usually in reaction to things, rather than by willful choice, that our attention seeks it's objects out. When we are listening to someone speaking, and someone walks in suddenly, we don't stop and decide which thing is more important to focus on. We just look up to see who's coming in. This is a reaction. When our significant other speaks angrily to us, we reply in kind. We don't weight all the possible responses to pick the best one, we just snap back. It's a reaction.

And when we have our attention focused on violence, such as that seen on TV or in the newspaper, violent thoughts arise in reaction (or fearful thoughts, or thoughts of disgust). We don't decide what's coming up in our mind next, after seeing an image of a man striking his wife, or learn of a brutal homicide, or see people exhibiting divisive or hurtful behavior. We react, reasonably, with thoughts and feelings we generally consider to be negative (fear, anger, contempt, condemnation, etc.).

So, why do we focus so much attention on things that are violent, frightening, or contemptible? The news is full of stories of war, hate, killing, disease and misfortune. TV shows and movies are often tales involving violence or destructive interpersonal conflict. When was the last time you went an entire week without seeing someone killed or subjected to violence in the media? How often do you think people 100 years ago saw these things?

Now, I'm not advising that you give up your favorite shows or your access to worldly information. All I say is, if you're going to subject yourself to opportunities where these kinds of seeds can be planted within you, be aware of when you are doing so, so that by your own reactions, you do not water them any more than necessary. Awareness is the key to undoing habits of thought (Ch.1), so when you are bombarded with negative imagery, you can become detached from the chain of thoughts to follow, remain objective, and maintain an inner peacefulness.

Jim

The Most Interesting Person in the World...

Who occupies the vast majority of your thoughts? Whose miseries are the most painful to you? Whose luck is the most important to you? Who's flaws are the most worrisome to you. Who do you worry most of your worries for? Who's good fortune do you celebrate the most? Who do you feel sorry for the most?

Whose happiness do you spend all your time and energy on?

If you said, "Me!", congratulations. You're in good company (much more important than if someone else is in good company, I'm sure). We humans really do spend a lot of time on our selves. Even the most generous and giving among us still dwell on their own problems and wants the most. In fact, it frightens us when we think our happiness is unattainable, and it fills us with joy to get what we want. Life is the "Story of Me" for nearly every human on Earth, and we all sit on the edges of our seats, hoping the story will turn out the way we want.

But here's the thing: when it comes to your power to generate happiness, and relieve misery, YOU are the person you are LEAST equipped to serve. Think about it. How many times do you have to tell yourself you're a wonderful person to get the same degree of satisfaction that you would get from another person telling you this? Nothing moves us like a sincere appreciation of our self. A momentary look from a person we find attractive can have us feeling good all day, when staring in the mirror (no matter how approving the face you make) is likely to only lead to dissatisfaction, as the fear that our faults will barre us from happiness.

When we give our interest to ourselves, in other words, it only yields a tiny percentage of the happiness we get when we give our interest to others. And the thing of it is, since we all are grateful for the interest given to us (sincere interest), we generate a great deal more interest in our own self by devoting our attention to others. It's a bit counter-intuitive, really. Most of the time, the more we pay attention to a thing, the more we get out of that thing. However, when it comes to the self, we get more by diverting our attention to other selves, and forgetting ours entirely.

Give it a try, and you will see. Forget yourself intentionally for a day, and devote your attention to others. Make your priority the happiness of your spouse, your lover, your child, your neighbor, anyone but you. The satisfaction that will ultimately come to you will be more than you could ever dream of giving yourself.

Jim

Arguing

What is it that we are trying to accomplish when we get into an argument? What is the goal of this competition? We are trying to change the view of another to our own. We are trying to make another person see things our way, and we take it very seriously, indeed. We throw logic at them. We raise our voice. We may even insinuate something negative about the character of that person if they continue to resist. But what, ultimately, do we gain if we are successful?

Well, unless consensus is required prior to taking some kind of action (like deciding on where to go on vacation), arguing is usually about winning. And winning is all about self-validation. In Ch. 3, I talk about the self, and how it is an idea and nothing more. That is, it is a collection of ideas that are bundled together, called "me", and are mistaken for the source of one's consciousness. However, since any and all of these ideas can change without the consciousness going away, they are not the source, but merely experiences that we choose to identify with.

When we argue to win, we create conflict in order to protect this illusion. When someone suggests that our ideas are wrong, there is a threat to self; and since self is mistaken for the source of our consciousness (and therefore our very existence) we feel instinctively obliged to defend it.

In reality, though. Nothing is defended, and nothing changes. If you are 100% successful in changing another's mind, reality is unaffected. What was the truth continues to be the truth, and your self is still just an idea. No safety or strength has been enhanced. If you fail, the same is true. However, since in all contests there is a loser, insecurity (and therefore suffering) is introduced where none existed before. This is all that is achieved by arguing: the creation of bad feelings between people.

So, before being sucked into an argument, ask yourself, as objectively as your emotions will allow, "What is really to be gained here by arguing?"

Jim

Spirituality Without Faith

I think we've all heard someone say, at some point or other, that their faith helped them through a difficult time, or to make sense of the terrible things that happen in the world. And I think we also have heard people say in response, "I wish I could be like you, but I just can't accept something simply on faith". This is a problem for many of us. We all face the great mysteries of existence, from existing itself to the inevitability of death, but not all of us are capable of deriving guidance and succor from religion because our minds, insistent upon reasonable explanation, rule out the choice.

So what happens to us, the ones incapable of faith? Are we doomed to accept the other alternative, that once you die you go in the ground, that there's nothing more to our lives than meaninglessness, that anyone who believes in higher powers is a fool? Of the faithless I have met, there does seem to be a ubiquity of smugness at the religious "nuts" who can't accept that there's nothing there.

It seems to me that that answer to things doesn't involve any more thought than "simply accepting things on faith." To say it is irrational to believe that beliefs based on faith are irrational because of lack of evidence is true. But to believe that there must be nothing to believe in is just as irrational. The fact is, we don't have all the answers. However, there are some areas of the discussion that have been neglected.

I have tried to address these ideas in my book, "You Are God." I take a logical approach to explain phenomena in life that we all experience on a regular basis, and tie those ideas together to bring into focus a spirituality that does not require faith. It is a vision in which every person's consciousness is the same consciousness, only apparently separate, and that consciousness is what makes existence itself possible. And since there is only one consciousness, and you are conscious, that consciousness must, necessarily, be YOURS. And existence, therefore, must be your creation.

If you haven't had a chance to read it, please take the time. It's not a quick and easy read, but the time invested will transform your idea of the world and your place in it.

Jim

The Experience Is...

As we know from Ch. 3, the Self is nothing more than an idea; an idea we mistake for the origin of our consciousness. I think that part of the reason it can be difficult to let go of the Self, however, and accept that it is only an idea, is in the mechanism of our thought.

Thought is an exercise involving language. When we think about things, we do so by "speaking" to ourselves, in our minds, listening to what is spoken, then responding. And the way we structure ideas is the same way we structure language, in a Subject-Verb-Object form. For example, when you say, "I walked to the store", the subject is "I", the verb is "walked" and the object is "store."

When we apply this structure to experiencing things, it follows the same logic: "I (subject) see (verb) a tree (object)". Just "see a tree" doesn't make sense. There must be a subject to carry out the verb of experiencing, and that ends up being the Self.

Aside from reinforcing the need to accept this idea of Self, this presents another problem. It distorts the process of actually experiencing things, by superimposing a complex idea on everything we experience. Experiences aren't experiences in themselves, but rather experiences as they relate to self. This tends to conceptualize the experience pretty quickly. Instead of just taking in the moment as it comes, there is a process of identification, evaluation, and relationship creation (all ideas) to "make sense" out of the experience. Instead of being in the moment, you are lost in thought.

So, here's an idea about re-connecting with experience, either in a meditative sense or in any moment. Instead of asking yourself, "What am I experiencing?" instead try, "The experience is..." and let the attention move directly into looking, listening, etc. Treat the experience as if that's all there is, and there is no Self experiencing it. The experience is... and THAT is all there is to reality, no complex structure of ideas necessary to support it. Just the experience.

Jim

What Psychopaths Have Taught Me

I've been learning about an eye-opening subject lately: psychopathy. For example, I learned that approximately 1% of the population are psychopaths. That's pretty startling. Of course, they aren't all murderous psychopaths, like Ted Bundy or John Gacy. They are your run of the mill psychopaths: people devoid of empathy, compassion or conscience who prey upon others to get what they want, living emotionally shallow lives of manipulation, lying, and deceit. In fact, there's a checklist of behaviors that psychologists use to identify whether a person has a psychopathic personality, and it is from reading this list that I had a revelation about the way I look at others, and myself.

As I read this list, I experienced what most people do: a tendency to look through my own life and wonder, "Was this person a psychopath?" And I found it especially tempting with people who I haven't liked very well. The behaviors listed include: callous, narcissistic, manipulative, pathological lying, irresponsible, etc. I could think of a lot of people these traits applied to, going back to my earliest memories, and I was tempted to label a lot of people. As I learned, though, I realized that for all of these people, there was some exception that probably ruled out their being psychopaths.

However, what I also realized was, that this list represented the behaviors associated with every action a person had ever taken that had really hurt me. And this is what the revelation was for me. It was someone who didn't care whether they hurt me or not that made me cynical and guarded, it was someone who callously betrayed me that made me not want to trust, it was someone who treated me like a means to their ends that made me resent authority, and so on. It wasn't accidental harm, or sad events, or differences of opinion that left lasting scars. It was the people who behaved in ways that are associated with monsters.

Now, here's the thing. People judge themselves, and each other, over a lot of things. Things that, when you look at what really has brought pain into your life, seem pretty trivial. People worry about their weight, and their crows feet. They worry about whether they have a nice home or car. They worry about the status their job provides them. And all these worries amount to the same thing: what is my worth as a person? Well, ask yourself this: if you add together all the "unacceptable things" that you've ever experienced from others, how much pain have they caused you compared to one act of callous betrayal, or intentional humiliation, or belittlement? I'll bet all the people with shitty jobs, muffin tops, bad breath, crooked teeth, poor social skills, big butts, crappy apartments, and all the rest that you've encountered in your life didn't cause you a tenth of the anguish that being laughed at would... That being publicly humiliated would... That being hurt by someone indifferent to your pain would.

That was what struck me. I am an empathetic person who genuinely cares about people's feelings. If you tell me a secret, I will not use it against you. I am a good friend. I am a safe place for anyone who needs to be seen and listened to. I'm not perfect. I have shitty credit, am overweight, and I make a crappy living. But how can I judge myself negatively, when I know that no matter what superficial flaws I may have, I am part of the solution, not the problem?

There are people out there who feel nothing for others, and see them as objects to be used. Some of them are psychopaths. Others just think it's okay to act like psychopaths sometimes. And they are the reason that sayings like, "Life's a bitch and then you die" are so popular. Not the people who don't "measure up" socially. Those values are just trivia. This realization changed my feelings about myself and others quite deeply, and I haven't had a day with self-doubt since. I am MORE than "good enough" as a person.

I hope that my insights inspire you to reconsider your own negative self-judgments, and to see yourself in a new light. I have known the kindest people who yet felt unworthy, and it is a great tragedy since it is they, and people like them, who are solely responsible for life being worth living, and even, occasionally, wonderful.

Jim

Questioning Ourselves

What makes us unique as animals is our ability to think. That is, our ability to ask ourselves questions about the world, and things in it, and create new information that answers those questions. We look at the sea and ask ourselves, "How can I cross this?" and from that question, the idea of a boat is born. "How can I feed myself, and my family?" and the ideas of hunting and farming are born. "How can I be happy?" and many the many ideas that make a life are born.

However, the real power of asking oneself questions doesn't come to pass until one begins to question oneself. Until that point comes, we are simply using this amazing tool of thinking in a reactive way, to satisfy primitive needs and live the lives of enhanced animals. "How can I defeat my enemy?" is asked, and new weapons are devised for this purpose. For an animal, defeating one's enemy is a matter of survival. However, for a human, it eventually becomes a recipe for disaster.

It is when we ask ourselves questions like, "Why is it so important for me to defeat my enemy?" or "Why does it make me so angry when I lose an argument?" or "Why do I feel the need to judge others?" that we make the leap from enhanced animal to divine being. At that point, we create for ourselves a power of choice that no other animal has ever even conceived of. We can put aside our instincts and operate on a higher plane of being. We not only learn ways to live with the enhanced power our thinking capacity has harnessed for us, we also transcend the confines of an animal nature to live lives that only our imagination could conceive.

When we learn to question ourselves, we gain our true humanity, and our greatest potential.

Jim

It All Points to You

In Chapter 2, we talk about reality as an experiential phenomenon. That is, experience is an essential quality of reality, and without it, there is no reality at all. Quantum physics describes this as superposition, where all possible realities potentially exist together, but none of them actually exists. From a personal level, it means that experience is the outer boundary of reality. There is nothing that is beyond it. Even the idea of something beyond it exists within experience.

But what can we say about experience, and experiencing? What are its significant elements? In the book we talk about experiences which are always present, such as locality in time and space (everything is experienced here and now), but what stands out about experience itself?

Every experience is YOUR experience. The entire Universe exists because YOU are experiencing it. The experience is literally directed toward you. Consider the most distant galaxies, and their light, travelling billions of light years directly toward where you will be when it arrives HERE, NOW. Now you might be inclined to think that there's a lot of light that travels everywhere else, too, but that's not the relevant matter. It's the fact that everything out there has reached out to YOU that matters. From every direction, the Universe comes to you.

You are always in the middle of everything pointing inward, reaching back to here and now and YOU. You might be inclined to think that there are many of us, all subject to equal attention by experience, but the experience is the same for each of us. We all are touched by Everything through the phenomenon of "I experience". The whole of existence is a first-person phenomenon in this way. Even if you forget that we are all one "I", we are all still One in that each of us is at the center of time and space, reached out to from all directions by the entire Universe through the connection of experience.

Remember this the next time you feel insignificant, or like you don't matter. You are God, and you can see it all around you, the Universe pointing at YOU.

Facing Inner Problems

We are often inclined to think that the problems we face within ourselves are not nearly so difficult to overcome as those that come from without. And I believe that most of the advice we receive, be it from friends, self-help books, etc. tends to reinforce this idea.

When we face an outward problem, like looking for a job, solving a dispute with a friend, or coping with a major setback, we are facing not only things that are within our control, but many things that are not. On the other hand, goes the conventional wisdom, inner problems contain only elements we can control, so they should be much easier to deal with. Whether that problem is an addiction, a fear to be overcome, or low self-esteem, it can be dealt with by a simple change in attitude, being willing to take the time to get organized, or "getting off your butt" and changing yourself.

Well, after 44 years of life, I'm fairly convinced that that is nonsense, and that our inner problems are, in fact, the most difficult hurdles we will face in life. And I believe that the idea that they should be easy to solve only contributes to that difficulty.

Consider the alcoholic, or the procrastinator, or the nervous eater. It seems like all they would have to do is stop participating in their bad habits, exert a little willpower, and their problem would be solved. However, if this is the case, why do each of them continue in their self-damaging habits, in spite of a great deal of guilt and painful feelings of failure? These problems are more difficult because they involve our relationship with our self (Ch. 3). We take these behaviors and we identify with them, and if we do not like them, we experience the pain of not liking ourselves. This pain undermines our confidence, which in turn weakens our resolve to battle our bad habits. This pain also demands comforting, which our bad habits, more often than not, were taken up to provide in the first place, setting the stage for a vicious cycle. Adding a belief that it should be easy only adds fuel to the fire.

The good thing is, when we do overcome our inner problems, we move forward toward the greater happiness we desire in our life. And while it does require great courage and determination to win these battles, one shouldn't have to fight unreasonable beliefs that they would be easy to solve if not for some personal shortcoming.

Jim

Emotional Hostility

As a species, we do pretty well when it comes to curtailing our violent impulses. I know this seems strange to say, in light of all we see on the news, but those stories are the exception. When we become angry with others, we generally fight back against any more primitive urge to resort to violence. Even in traffic.

However, we are allot looser in our self-restriction when it comes to emotional hostility. Gossip, sarcasm, insults, eye rolling and qualifications in our choice of words implying something negative about the person we're addressing ("you're going to wear THAT?") are weapons in all of our social arsenals.

Now, here's a question: If emotional pain is generally considered to be worse than physical pain, why is emotional hostility less reviled than physical hostility? Understandably, physical hostility is frowned upon because of the effect it has on social order, and because it can escalate into acts which can cause irreparable harm or death. However, for anyone who has been verbally bullied or degraded (especially as a child) we know the damage from spoken violence can be just as long lasting.

One of my favorite movie quotes is from the film "Talk Radio", in which Barry Champlain (played by Eric Bogosian) states:

Sticks and stones
May break my bones,
But words
Cause permanent damage.

I think it's important to consider the effects our words can have, and how little we gain from the hurt they cause, when anger or other hostility-provoking emotions take hold of us.

Jim

What if You Woke Up and Were Someone Else?

The idea that we are all one, and that YOU are the one that we all are, can be a difficult thing to wrap your mind around. The notion that, for example, you (Carol) are having a conversation with a friend (Bob) is also true the other way around (You, Bob, are having a conversation with a friend, Carol), can be confusing. We are so used to seeing thing in terms of our one self, separate and distinct from all other selves, that it feels like one is attempting mental contortions in order to picture it.

And that is understandable. All of our experiences, be they sights and sounds or thoughts and feelings, are local to your body. You never experience the feelings or sensory impressions of others. So why should you consider the possibility that you are anything but an isolated cell of consciousness?

Well, there is the argument in Chapter four that consciousness cannot be a product of any process, that it cannot be an effect to any cause that can be brought into being in this Universe. Not without bringing a contradiction into being; namely, that you would be you, and not you, at the same time. So, if you're a logical being you're kind of forced to accept it, because one consciousness, with all sentient beings being different experiences it is having, is the only explanation that is compatible with the Universe we live in.

So, how do you wrap your mind around it?

I use this example: What if you woke up and were someone else? How would you know that you were one person yesterday, but now an entirely different person? You would only know if you took some memory with you in the change. Unfortunately, there is no means for this to occur, so, when you woke up as someone else, you would think you had been that person all along! In fact, last night, you could have gone to bed as someone entirely different, and you would never have known it this morning when you woke up.

Well, what if you woke up in the morning, and you were EVERYONE! Again, there's no mechanism there for each body to perceive the sensations of another, so you would have no idea. You would experience being you as Bob, and Carol, and President Obama, and Gadafi, and everyone else in the world. But with no mechanism to perceive the connection, it would feel like you were trapped in one body, looking out at a multitude of other souls in theirs, all the while never realizing that there was no separation at all, that you were each of them, every single one.

I hope this helps provide a wedge into this idea of one shared "I", as I describe in Chapter 4. It's not an idea we can understand intuitively, because we have no direct experience that points that way. However, we have a great gift in our imagination to reach beyond our limitations and see what has never been seen. I hope that I have made this picture a bit clearer to the mind's eye.

Jim

Responsibility and Blame

We are heavily into blame as a species, I think. Accountability is a favorite buzzword, and whenever something bad happens (if we can) we look for someone, or some party, to hold accountable. Even if the problem is largely the result of forces outside our control, there will be someone looking for why more preparation for forces outside our control weren't taken, and whose fault it was.

However, for as dearly as we cling to blame, how much thought is actually given to what constitutes responsibility, and what has to happen before a person can really be blamed for something?

In chapter 1 I talk about Karma. In the Universe, there are two kinds of actions: acts of will, and acts of karma. In terms of cause and effect, acts of will are causes that are not effects, but flow from intent, while Karma is all action which is effect. And from this perspective, it seems only reasonable to assign responsibility solely to those who brought about the blameworthy result by an act of will.

That is, they took the action by conscious choice, and with the intention of the result for which they are blamed.

A good example is a car accident. If you turned into oncoming traffic intending to cause a collision, it's no accident, and you're to blame. If it was not intended, then it was accidental, and you are not to blame.

This is simple. However, the rest of it is not. For example, what about someone who loses their head in the heat of an argument, and says something hurtful they later regret? Is it willful (that is, a product of conscious choice with the intent of being hurtful), or is it karmic (an unintended reaction to anger)? Does a person choose to lose their cool? Or what about a person who commits a crime, such as assault? He hits another person. Later, he considers his actions and feels regret, however, he cannot change the past. Is he to be blamed for the crime? Think about it. He acted willfully in the past, but now his will is to erase the wrongdoing. Is it not reasonable to say the act of the past is against his will of the present? If so, he cannot be blamed.

These are the kinds of questions that, while not always easily or unequivocally answerable, should be taken into consideration by everyone before passing judgment. We are quick to blame, but blame often leads to harm and suffering, and they do not often lead to an improvement in the human condition.

Jim

The Absurdity of Insults

Insults, slights, petty looks and disrespect; we have all seen (and likely participated in) actions that were intended to hurt the feelings of others. We have also seen how these actions have harmed relationships, precipitated anger, and even led to violence. However, have you ever taken the time to really look at what an insult is?

An insult is an idea mistaken for a thing (Ch. 2). That is, because a thing is said to be so, it doesn't make it so. If I called you a fool, it would not make you any more or less a fool than if I had said nothing at all. If I called you the smartest person on the planet, the same would be true. However, we all would feel at least a little offended by the first statement, and a little flattered by the second, as if these statements had some meaningful influence on reality.

However, to react at all to another person's statements about you (remember that self is just an idea mistaken for a thing as well (ch.3)) is irrational. In fact, the only credence you can give to someone telling you you're a fool is to accept that your self, as it exists in their mind, is perhaps described as foolish, in spite of the fact that it is only an idea. They might have a picture of your self in their mind that looks like a fool to them.

The thing is, though, in most cases, the person flinging the insult doesn't even believe their own words. They are just saying them because they are angry, and want to hurt you in some way. And since this is the case, reacting to insults becomes doubly irrational, because they don't even apply to the image the other person has of you.

So, why does it hurt to be insulted, teased, or ridiculed?

We all suffer from self doubt because of self's inherent instability. An idea can never be a real thing. However, as long as we are dependent on the integrity of the idea of self (because we believe it is real and we believe it is truly who we are), we are always at the mercy of those who would use words and other gestures to harm us.

Take some time to consider this fully. You will still react to hurtful words, because that is the nature of karma. It's what you have been conditioned to believe your whole life about insults, and the self. However, it WILL take the sting out of those pointed words to know that it's all just a game of shadows, even if the players don't know it.

Jim

Anger's Illusion of Clarity

Of all the emotions, I would say anger interferes the most with clear thinking, and therefore objective exercise of will. In other words, as a karmic reaction, it is more persuasive in our choices than other kinds of karma in our Intimate Environment (Ch. 2). I attribute this to the fact that being angry makes us think we are thinking clearly (sometimes, we think it is more clearly than normal), when in fact we aren't really thinking at all.

When we are angry, especially with others, we are more prone to saying things that we later regret than when we are under the influence of any other emotion. But regret comes in retrospect only, when the anger has passed and we are thinking clearly once more. Until that happens, however, the tendency is somewhat the opposite: to feel that what we are saying is "baring our soul" or "coming clean" and telling someone exactly what we think.

Now, anger is an alternative to fear. It drives the fight part of the fight or flight response that all animals, even humans, feel in response to a threat. For most of us, that threat is usually to the self, and therefore illusory, but that is a topic for another post. However, it is a threat, and if we are going to respond to a threat by fighting, we need to be sure we can win that fight. You can't go into battle with doubts, you have to be single-minded so you will give 100% to fighting for your survival.

However, this assurity that serves us so well in the jungle does little in the world of ideas mistaken for things (Ch. 2). Instead, it drives us to say things we don't mean, to hurt our relationships (sometimes in ways that cannot be fixed), and ultimately to hurt ourselves. However, the idea is not to try to combat one's tendency to anger, but rather to be aware of it, as it emerges, and to maintain the awareness that it is clouding your thinking, no matter how you may FEEL that the opposite is true.

We all feel anger, but we do not need to take action in response to it that will create pain for others or for ourselves if we remember it's nature, and act accordingly.

Jim

Putting it all on the Table

In order to understand that Self is only an idea, it is necessary to understand the difference between experiencer and experience. One metaphor I like to use is the image of a table on which all experiences are placed, with the experiencer standing over, surveying them.

First, you take all your sensory experiences and place them on the table. Sights, sounds, tastes, etc. This is only a tiny fraction of what you experience daily so it doesn't take up much of the table. I know this is an odd thing to say, but you have to remember that most of what we experience is ideas. For example, if you see a car in your driveway, you get a brief flash of color as a sensory experience, then you get the experience of identification with ideas (such as "car", "mine", "driveway" etc.), and the formulation of new ideas (i.e. "needs washing"). Most of what we "see" are ideas and thoughts.

So, the next thing to do is put all the ideas, thoughts, impressions, emotional reactions, etc. on the table. Now you are looking at the contents of your mind, and your senses, and your life begins to take shape in the myriad objects populating your table.

But now, who's looking at the stuff there?

"It's me!" you think. But wait, "me" is an idea, so that has to go on the table as well. "Me" is an idea that we attach to experiences we identify with, to differentiate them from things we don't, but as chapter 3 discusses, those things are not only all experiences (as opposed to experiencer), but they are free to change in any way imaginable without altering the presence of experience as a constant, and therefore, altering the experiencer of experiences in any way.

So, we revisit the question about who's looking at the stuff on the table, and no matter what we come up with, it's still an experience (usually an idea) and therefore must go on the table. Then what's left?

When you make the effort to experience the experiencer, you become the camera that tries to photograph itself. You experience a paradox. The experiencer which makes reality possible (See Ch. 3) cannot be experienced, because there's no experience there. There is only what the Buddhists call "emptiness", and it is the truth at the core of our existence.

Jim

Intelligence Experiment

I think that intelligence, largely, is a matter of being able to find patterns in one's environment, and that the greater intelligence is that which is capable of finding more and more subtle patterns. If this is true, then it should be possible to exercise one's pattern detecting ability in a number of ways, and increase one's intelligence.

Well, one way that seems promising to me is the assumption of different points of view. That is, training your mind by attempting to see things from other points of view as completely as you can; the more points of view the better. Being able to put yourself completely into different vantage points (not just intellectually, but emotionally as well), opens up new ways of looking at things, and, as a consequence, gives more ways of finding patterns in the chaos of our moment to moment environment.

I am already trying to expand my ability to assume different points of view, and I feel it's helped me to see many things more clearly than I otherwise would have. However, I would like to invite others willing to try the same thing (or who have been making the effort to assume a wider range of views for other reasons) and see how the effort has effected them.

Have you found that opening yourself to different points of view has sharpened your mind? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Jim

The Ideal Meditative State

As I discuss in Chapters 5 and 6, to listen is the most fundamental spiritual act. This is different than merely hearing. It is an active process, where you willfully direct your attention toward discovering what is. This idea can be extrapolated to include ideas like looking (as opposed to seeing), touching (as opposed to feeling), and so on. It is an active process of discovery.

That being said, the ideal meditative state should reflect this goal of listening. Most books on the subject that I have read recommend focusing on some kind of object. This can be the breath, a candle flame, an ambient noise, or any number of other objects. In fact, my own book discusses using such objects for meditative attention. However, you can go further.

Objects of any kind will generally direct the mind, karmically, toward the generation of distracting ideas. If you focus on a flame, for example, the idea of "flame" will invariably overlap what your raw attention is taking in from the present experience, splitting your attention between the intimate (idea) and extimate (the flame) experiences. So, to keep the attention intact, and intensify the meditative state, I suggest focusing the attention not on a thing, but on the answer to a question: What is?

Instead of identifying a thing in your environment, and focusing on THAT, the idea is to focus on whatever you are experiencing right now. There is less need for control (such as trying to keep the mind totally fixed on one thought or object) making it easier to just allow what is to be what is. It's an absolutely passive state, listening to one's own experiences in real time and just allowing them to be. In fact, there is no allowing, even, as that is a response to the stream of experience. You just simply take in your experiences, without reaction, as they are, as they pass through your awareness.

I have had great success in my meditation from taking this approach. To know what truly is, you have to take the time to look. We don't do that, naturally, as we are all programmed to understand our environment in terms of ideas, and how they relate to each other. Meditating in the way I described will help to distance you from that habit, opening you up to new ways of looking at reality.

Jim

Suffering in Egypt

In Egypt this last few days, there has been a great deal of turmoil, and it has been discussed at great length in the media and on the Internet. However, most of what has been discussed isn't what is really going on there. Most of what has been discussed has been ideas mistaken for things.

I discuss this concept of ideas mistaken for things throughout my book, but especially in chapters 1 and 3. Injustice, for example, is an idea, not an actual thing. This week in Egypt, the reality that we use this idea to try and understand, is much simpler: it is anger, fear, and pain. The idea of injustice creates a context in which we can judge these emotional and physical experiences. It also creates a context in which one can find the justification to create more suffering.

So it is especially important, at times like this, that we strive to see the difference between ideas and things. Because the foundational reality of all human interaction is that we are all one. Each person involved is just a different experience being perceived by one consciousness; the same consciousness that is reading these words right now. Whether it is the hated despot or the grieving widow or the frightened young soldier, the truth is, they are all you, and those identities are just different ideas you are using to make sense out of the different experiences.

So, regardless of your passion for the ideas in play, such as democracy, justice, freedom, or peace, do not let your emotions distract you from what is really happening: that there is growing suffering, and that it is You, the single awareness of the entire Universe, that feels it. If we all remember that, then what use might we put our ideas toward then?

Jim

How to Think

In Chapter 5, one of the practices I describe for enlarging awareness is the practice of questioning everything. This could also be called the practice of thinking, as thinking is a skill that can be summed up in the action of "asking yourself questions".

When we think, this is what we do. We ask, for a simple example, "What do I want for dinner?" and the mind returns an answer, "Pizza." Or we ask something more complicated, such as, "Should I marry this person?" Which not only returns an answer or answers, but very likely many other questions we must subsequently ask ourselves if we hope to answer the initial question.

The more you ask yourself questions, the more you are thinking. And the more you are thinking, the more you are growing aware. You see, there's more to it than just asking yourself a question; you must also LISTEN for the answer. This practice of listening, or focusing attention, is just as powerful in the process of thinking as it is in meditation or any other awareness-increasing exercise.

Our thoughts, however, are also directed by Karma, as we discuss in Chapter 1. Some questions are asked out of habit, and answers returned in the same manner. So much so that the asking and listening dynamic is replaced by simple reaction. A good example is the person who tells you a fact you know to be blatantly wrong, and when you correct him, he just goes on believing it to be true. To ask himself "Could I be wrong, and this person be right?" is so difficult, that the reaction of shutting out unwanted facts takes over. No one does denial by conscious choice.

So, it's important to question as much as you can, especially ideas that you don't examine too closely. Of course, I wouldn't tell you what to think (despite the title of this entry), you must find your own answers to truly understand the nature of your own experience. However, I will admonish you to ask the best questions you can. Because the more you do, the more you will discover, and the richer you life will be for it.

Jim

A few ideas about Good and Evil

There are those who say you cannot have Good without Evil, just as you cannot have day without night. I think this idea is wrong, and here's why:

Good is essentially our creative power. Whether the good we're talking about is bringing a new life into the world, completing an important goal, accomplishing something to improve our lives, or simply building trust in our relationships, they all involve creating something that was not there before. Evil, on the other hand, is more focused on the destructive side of things. Whether it's blowing up a building in an act of terror, lying to someone to take advantage of them, or taking a life, all acts of evil require a willful intent to destroy the good things that others have created.

And therein lies my point. Evil is dependent on Good. You cannot blow up the World Trade Center without first building it. You cannot kill a person without that person's life first being brought into the world, and you cannot lie without trust being built there first. However, there is no mandate whatsoever that good things, once created, must be destroyed.

Why is evil so tempting, then, if it is at such a disadvantage? Because it's easier than good. It takes far more effort to build a house than burn it down, or to build a life than to take it away, or to steal a fortune than to earn one. So, for those who desire the easy way, acts of destruction (or threats of same in order to coerce someone's actions) prove quite effective.

So, it is unlikely that evil people, be they terrorists, dictators, or tax collectors, are likely to disappear anytime soon. The good news is, it's only because there is so much good in the world for them to use against their fellow man. Evil may be easier, but it still isn't winning.

Jim

Thinking about Compassion

It's pretty easy to have compassion for victims, and for the helpless, and for those who have fallen on hard times. But what about those who victimize others? Or what about those who have only themselves to blame for their predicament? These people don't generally get as much sympathy as the good or the innocent who have been blindsided by fate, and oftentimes, they are actually the recipients of disdain and condemnation.

But then we remember that those people are just experiences of the same single consciousness than any of us are. So, what do we do about compassion for the drug addict, the child molester, or the most horrible of human beings, the politician?

This is a strategy that I recommend: Instead of looking for some reason to have empathy or sympathy for such people, which would be almost impossible in some cases (the smug, unrepentant rapist, for example), try asking yourself, "What would have to happen, in my past, in my life today, and in my own mind, to make ME like that person?" This is a pretty creative exercise in self-discovery, because you're going to have to consider many questions and circumstances that maybe you've never thought about before. "What kind of damage would I have to receive to ever consider killing another person?"

What this line of thought does is allow you think of the "bad person" as a person, because you think of yourself as a person. It allows the mind to move past the idea mistaken for a thing, the label you place on the person (jerk, Nazi, low life, murderer, etc.) and see them as you see yourself. Now, you might have to put together a HUGE laundry list of awful circumstances to get yourself into that person's shoes, but in doing so, it becomes easier to see that there must be more to that person than his/her actions at the moment, or even over the course of a lifetime. It also ensures that you see that they must be suffering in many ways, to have come to such a place in their lives where horrible actions are what they feel they must commit to deal with their circumstances.

Jim

Understanding vs. Acceptance

In Chapter 4, I lay down the arguments proving that you are God.  However, it's one thing to read these arguments and understand them, and something else entirely to really accept the truth of it.  It's much like facing the inevitability of dying.  We all know our time is limited, but it's still a terrifying thing to really try and take in the fact that our last day WILL be upon us, just as today is.

Fortunately, accepting that you are God is a bit less terrifying than staring into the abyss.  And it is something that really needs to be taken to heart if it is your intention to go about your day and your life in a more enlightened way.  Every day, for example, we face innumerable small trials that have a totally different significance if we look at them from a perspective of "I am God" rather than "I am my self."  The petty gestures, the boredom, the "one more thing to go wrong", that the day can hurl at us mean something entirely different when you see yourself as a part of everything, and everything as a part of you.

Take a look at yourself in the mirror.  There you see the face with which you identify.  It could be another face tomorrow, and you would still be you, so you know it is a part of your self, and not truly you.  However, it IS you who is looking into the mirror.  Take a moment to reflect on the fact that the consciousness beholding your face is the only consciousness in the entire universe.  At this moment, you are experiencing what it means to be in God's sight.  'I', the one consciousness, the entire Universe itself, is looking at your face.

Try to remember how this feels when you are with others, or going about the business of your day, or eating a meal.  There is no experience that is not divine, and this is so because YOU are experiencing it.

Jim

Eavesdropping on Your Mind

The purpose of meditation is, of course, to enhance awareness of things as they are.  It helps us to experience thought as thinking, and sensory experiences as real.  However, one of the biggest problems you're going to have when attempting to maintain this state of awareness in meditation is the tendency to get caught up in your thoughts.  Soon, they go from something you're observing to something you're "living in", and that realness of them can be extremely compelling, especially when you're trying to develop a mental discipline.

Well, one trick I have come up with is "eavesdropping".  In traditional eavesdropping, you can imagine a child with his ear to a door, struggling to hear what his parents are discussing in private.  Well, when using an eavesdropping technique in meditation, you're basically doing just that.  You are there, listening to what your mind, and the environment are "saying" in a detached manner.  For example, when thoughts enter your mind as you meditate, imagine that they are like voices in the next room, and listen to them as such.  When you eavesdrop, you do not try to control what is being said, you just passively take what comes.  You certainly don't involve yourself in the conversation, you just collect information.  You can do the same with sounds in the room, allowing them to enter your awareness without trying to involve yourself with them (like trying not to hear them, for example).

In chapter 5, I talk about meditation as a natural extension of listening, which is the most fundamental spiritual practice.  Eavesdropping, while not especially respectful of privacy, is a perfect expression of listening, with intention, to whatever is there to be heard.  There's no attempt at control, nor is there the urge to participate.  You just let whatever is there be, making no effort but to listen, so that you may be more aware of its presence.

Jim

Hurt People Hurt People

I heard this in a movie I saw recently: "Greenberg" starring Ben Stiller.  It's a very succinct way of describing personal Karma (Ch. 1 and Ch. 3), and putting hurtfulness into a perspective where compassion comes a little more naturally for the one who does the hurting.  Of course, it's easy to have compassion for the victim, but often we overlook the reality that the perpetrator is often a victim as well.  For example, it is well known that parents who abuse their children were themselves abused, and that ending that cycle of violence is not as simple as giving into one's wish to "be different than my parents were".

There is an element of karma, of powerfully motivating emotions that we do not choose to feel, and would gladly evict from our minds if we could, that drive acts of cruelty.  Whether it is the alcoholic harming himself, in reaction to his addiction, or a bully tormenting smaller children in reaction to his own sense of helplessness at the hands of an abusive parent or sibling, there is always more to the perpetration of harm than the perpetrator in question being "an asshole".  Harming others is invariably part of a cascading chain of karma, each new creation of suffering being inspired by one that came before it.

To end those evolving chains, it is essential to look beyond your anger at those who hurt others, and try to see the pain that drives them.  There may not be much there to indicate what that pain is, but you must try.  After all, we are all one.  And any pain inflicted, when all is said and done, is just pain that 'I' feel, with that 'I' being the same one that says, "'I' am reading this right now."  Any compassion is no more than a reaction to not wanting to suffer.  Remember who that other person really is, and why he causes you or someone else to suffer, and you will replace a seed of pain with a seed of an entirely more benevolent kind.

Jim