Communication 25
To my dear Russian readers (who have been most instrumental in the continuation of this site) . . . and to others, as well . . .
First and foremost, time (in the human conventional sense) is limited as to how frequently ‘I’ can actually engage in the activity of blogging.
Currently . . . ‘I’ (like many of you) am engaged in another employment opportunity that actually pays for the bills which accumulate on a monthly basis (food, rent, and the operational costs of a vehicle). Consequently, until ‘I’ stumble across another opportunity such that ‘I’ would come to discover a way to ‘earn-a-living’ sharing the thoughts crossing over . . . expect the sporadicism related to the communications appearing on this site.
In addition . . . ‘I’ will often times add to the current communication unfolding. For example, ‘I’ have continued to expand on Communication 25, and will continue to do so until a move is made toward another new possibilty of sharing.
This being communicated . . .
If you enjoyed (were intrigued or even confused) by the communication on religion, please suffer through my processes as ‘I’ attempt to articulate a passage through the fog toward a clarity of simply Being.
Pray tell . . . What is it about emptiness (the ‘experienced feeling’ of an emptiness) which seemingly catapults ‘peep-holes’ into a displayed erosion of Being?
Perhaps, it would serve as a benefit if ‘I’ were to define the term ‘empty.’
And . . . for this . . . I shall simply resort to the resourcefulness of good ol’ American College Dictionary (Random House 1962, p. 394).
empty: 1. containing nothing; void of the usual or appropriate contents 2. vacant; unoccupied 3. without burden or load 8. to make empty; deprive of contents; discharge the contents of
‘I’ am most certain you noticed the jump from 3 to 8 in this definitional process, and there is a reason for that: 4-7 are not necessarily operative in terms of this particular communication. However, if you are so inclined and want to know the operational basis of the definitions 4-7, please feel free to pursue their meaning in the cited resource aforementioned.
All formalities aside . . . let us now look at the first definition of the term ‘empty’. But before doing so . . . ‘I’ am going to nudge the adjective ‘empty’ into the noun ‘emptiness’: the quality of that which is empty.
With regards to the 1st definition, ‘emptiness’ would be defined in terms of that which contains nothing or that which is void of the usual or appropriate contents. (Actually, I would like this last phrase to read: that which is void of the usual or appropriating contents). ‘Appropriating contents” in terms of the taking in of a something for one’s exclusive or specific use.
The reason ‘I’ have selected to alter the term ‘appropriate’ to the term “appropriating” is due to the fact that the difference in their grammatical character is critical to the Understanding of That which ‘I’ attempting to communicate.
If ‘I’ were to say ‘appropriate contents’, ‘I’ would simply be suggesting that the contents which fill this particular ‘something’ are appropriate. For example: the appropriate contents of a wine goblet is wine. The adjective ‘appropriate’ describes the contents of a wine goblet. There is no choice in this matter: Wine goblets must be filled with wine because that is its specific use.
If (however) ‘I’ were to say the ‘appropriating contents’, ‘I’ am suggesting there is an action involved (perhaps an active decision-making) as to what is being decided into the contents of a particular ‘something.
For example: It is 8:00 A.M.. The only drinking vessel ‘I’ have at hand is a wine goblet. From prior discussion, ‘I’ know the ‘appropriate contents’ of a wine goblet is wine. But it is 8:00A.M. ‘I’ require unfermented juice at such an early hour. Wine is out of the question. Therefore, ‘I’ decide into the ‘appropriating contents’ of the wine goblet by actively deciding to pour orange juice into the wine goblet. The wine goblet is serving a new purpose due to an active decision.
The wine goblet no longer is filled with the ‘appropriate contents’ (which would be wine). It is now filled with ‘appropriating contents’ (the decision to fill it with orange juice).
Recalling: In the move from the adjective ‘empty’ (which serves to describe a certain something) to the noun ‘emptiness’ (THAT which is being described), it is important that ‘I’ narrow down the THAT of which ‘I’ intend discuss in terms of its emptiness. Otherwise you might still be considering the ‘emptiness’ of a wine goblet or (now that the holidays are over) the emptiness of your bank account.
The THAT of which ‘I’ am in reference to in this communication is the emptiness of Self.
If we look at the term ‘Self’ in relation to our first definition of ‘empty’ we could say (in juxtaposing terms) that a Self is full when it is not void of the usual or ‘appropriating contents’. (Similar in nature: a wine goblet is full when it is not void of the usual or ‘appropriating contents’.)
You could actually put many things into the emptiness of a wine goblet (as ‘I’ demonstrated with a decision to fill one with orange juice). But you could (just as easily) fill the wine goblet with milk, soda, syrup, soap, sand, clorox, coins, mashed potatoes, etc.. However, in strict cultural terms the designed purpose of a wine goblet is to fill it with wine. Hence the name WINE golblet . . . a goblet that holds wine.
If we were to exagerrate the ‘purpose-fullfilling-designed-use’ of a wine goblet and suggest that a wine goblet fell (unconsciously) under the rule of a religion’s strictures (hold on . . . . we’re in for a ride), we would have to say that a wine goblet is in good standing with God as long as the wine goblet is filled with wine. If (however) the wine goblet is filled with orange juice, it is an actual sin. If the said wine goblet is filled with mashed potatoes, it is a veniel sin. If (in all seriousness) it is filled with sand, it is definitely a mortal sin.This last infraction condemns the wine goblet to the eternal fires of hell like forever. Why? Because it did not serve its purpose . . . so damn the wine goblet.
But remember . . . ‘I’ am not really not concerned about wine goblets at all. Wine goblets and all ‘I’ have dared to communicate thus far is simply allegorically speaking. ‘I’ am still primarily focused on the Self.
In this process of discovery, ‘I’ now pose the question: For what purpose was the Self designed? More importantly, if we were to fill it . . . exactly what would be Its ‘appropriating contents’ such that it would be considered ‘full-of-its-purpose’? (Please keep in mind that we are using the term ‘appropriating’ to delineate a choice in this matter).
To define a something in terms of it’s purpose, is to look at the purpose for which it is designed. This may sound somewhat circular, indeed it is. But . . . it is the only approach one can consider in question as to why a something exists, or why a something was created or became manifest in the first place.
So . . . why was the Self created? If we are to consider its ultimate purpose of fullfillment , we will have to be very critical in terms of our decisions related to its purpose-fullfilling-contents.
We have this thing called a Self. It is a most amazing thingyness; a phenomenal occurance in time and space. An incredible envisioning of this Self is that It is connected to all the other selves within the manifest realm of experiencing. Even more exhausting . . . It is connected to all other ‘things’ within this same realm of experiencing.
If this ‘thing’ we are calling a Self is an ‘experiencing thing’ that is connected to all other things . . . what, in fact, (if their are any facts in this world) is Its ultimate purpose?
Perhaps . . . if we were to simply shed ourselves of the idea of Self being a kind of thingyness, we would clearly step free of all nouns, which merely serve to freeze frame the manifest realm of experiencing. But then we would have to create an entirely different language based entirely on verbs . . . which would be far more REAL since everything is in flow and flux.
However . . . If ‘I’ were to attempt at the purest description of the Self and Its ultimate purpose, ‘I’ would define the Self in terms of ‘an experiencing’. And Its ultimate purpose is simply ‘an experiencing’. In this case, the Self and Its ultimate purpose are synonomous.
Moreover . . . THAT which fullfills an experiencing is simply THAT which is being appropriated (or that which is suitable or fitting for a particular purpose . . . or a particular purposing).
Now . . . because I am stuck with this language (as feeble as it is . . . it is my only means until you learn how to step into Silence), ‘I’ must revert back to allegories to assist this communication. You do remember the wine goblet?
Let us take the wine out of the goblet (aw shucks!) but just for a moment. We now have that which is gobletting. No matter what ‘I’ fill into it, we can say it is gobletting those contents. In such a case, we could say it is gobletting wine, gobletting orange juice, gobletting milk, gobletting whatever is appropriating as contents.
Now . . . let us shift over to the Self (an Experiencing). No matter what ‘I’ decide to fill into It, we can say It is Experiencing Catholicism, Experiencing Taoism, Experiencing Theocracy, Experiencing Democracy, Experiencing whatever.
‘I’ have often been humored by ‘peep-holes’ who claim to have been born a Catholic. How absurd! No one is born a Catholic, a Protestant, a Democrat, a Theocrat . . . these are all identifications ‘peep-holes’ claim because their ‘processors’ are filled with Catholic contents, Protestant contents, Democratic contents, Theocratic contents . . .
An ‘Experiencing-of-Catholicism’ (Consciousness) has nothing to do with identifying one’s Self with Catholicism (unconsciousness). If the ultimate purpose of the Self is experiencing, why would any Self limit the possibilities of Its experiencing by becoming unconsciously entanged in an identification with a particular experiencing (e.g. Catholicism). Sounds more like an addiction than an enlightenment.
Appropriating the contents of anything simply allows the Self an experiencing, but the Self is free of all such appropriations. ‘I’ can appropriate the contents of a rose in tune with an experiencing without having to identify with its contents. The Self has no need to identify with this or that (neti neti). It is simply free to continue experiencing.
Unfortunately, ‘peep-holes’ think. But . . . not only do they think . . . they think that what they think is real. True . . . they are thinking real thoughts just like real clouds passing over a clear blue sky. And. . . just like clouds take on different shapes and forms, so similarily do thoughts take on different shapes and forms.
So . . . the question is: Can you watch thoughts pass over the mind like you watch clouds pass over the sky without getting entangled in them?
Thoughts are like clouds: they come-they go. Bu . . . You would not say: Those are my clouds (as they pass over the sky). And yet . . . you do not hestitate to claim thoughts as ‘yours’ because they cross over the mind.
And . . . it is precisely this ‘claiming-thoughts-to-be-yours’ that sets up the processes of identification within the ‘processor’. Simply put, the brain (processer) is computing (thinking) an identification (a thought formula) with the thoughts it is computing.
Thinking you see is not Seeing . . . it is thinking.
Thinking you know is not Knowing . . . it is thinking.
Thinking you understand is not Understanding . . . it is thinking.
When Seeing, Knowing, and Understanding happen, thinking is not necessary. In fact, thinking will interfer.
Now . . . why should ‘I’ have brought into this discussion the properties of thought? Quite simply: thoughts are what the ‘processor’ is appropriating. Fill the ‘processor’ with the content thoughts of Catholicism, and the da-gone ‘machine’ thinks it is a Catholic. Fill the ‘processor’ with the content thoughts of being a savior, and lo and behold, the blasted ‘machine’ thinks it is a savior. Fill the ‘processor’ with the content thoughts of being an authority, and ho diddely, the pathetic ‘machine’ starts thinking it is an authority. What is even more bizarre (insofar as this last case is concerned) is that a great many of the ‘peep-holed-processors’ actually start thinking ‘machines’ who call themselves the authority actually have some kind of authority over them. Yikes!!!!
All ‘I’ can say to this: Choose to respond to such authoritarian types with disgression.
All else aside . . . if you can ‘see’ what contents the ‘processor’ (brain) is processing (thinking), you will better understand the ‘peep-holed-machine’ you are encountering. Hence, the importance of truly listening to the Other to discover the contents of their processor. And . . . if you can engage in this discovery without judgement, you will meet a ‘peep-hole’ for what a ‘peep-hole’ is: (an unconscious machine caught up in an identification with what it is thinking–what the processor is processing).
Are you getting the feeling of the importance of Silence? . . . When the processor stops whirling . . . thinking ceases . . . allowing One to finally experience all that Is without qualification, judgement, distinction, or analysis. Sounds almost like sleep, yeh? But . . . what if you were totally awake . . . in an awakenedness where you were totally emptied of all the contents (thoughts) within which an identity (to this or that) or an aversion (to this or that) has been created?
Would the ‘who-you-think-you-are’ disappear? And what do you suppose would happen if the who-you-think-you-are’ would, in fact, dissolve?
Death . . . the only death ‘you’ will ever experience is death-of-ego: a death of ‘who-you-think-you-are.’ And this is why ‘peep-holes’ freek out when they encounter emptiness . . . because the ‘processor’ has been programmed to fear the death of all thoughts to which it has established the precedence (priviledge) of an identity.
