When you're "occupied with" something (you know, carried away by the music, lost in a book, buried in thought, etc.), why can't you SIMULTANEOUSLY be thinking to yourself, "Hey, time to do something else"? You can't, of course, because then you'd be occupied with THAT.
Indeed, the very "beginning" notion is a scam, like the luminiferous ether or Descartes' ad hoc pineal gland. In other words, b.s./illusion. For example, let's say you "begin" to read a book. But is this beginning a kind of Newtonian differential (more b.s./illusion) between the not reading and the reading? No, you're either reading the book or you're not reading the book. Simple.
The function of this scam is to validate the beginner. Someone's got to begin the reading, don't they? Nope. Reading is the coming into form of concentration. Entirely real, of course, but certainly not "caused" by any mythical separate self -- and oh yes, this also means there aren't any readers reading these words.
All these redundant agent/selves doing the transitive verb thing are merely ghosts of language. Useful fictions, perhaps, but isn't it about time for our species to grow up?
This is only one of many ways to pop the delusion bubble of consensus reality. Now who just said that? Beats me. Certainly not a ball bearing of autonomy. Who's writing this then? Meaningless question. Or, more accurately, a LEADING question -- as are most questions.
This is related to Wittgenstein's distinction between solvable vs. "dissolvable" problems (or problem/questions). Trying to solve a necessarily dissolvable problem is a variation of the orient's SAMSARA (i.e., vicious circling), such as fearing fear, remembering to forget, or trying to go to sleep on purpose.
What's the alternative? The alternative is giving the finger to Godot and beginning where you are. Of course, the real snapper about Waiting for Godot isn't that there isn't any Godot (which is pretty obvious), but there isn't any "waiter" (which isn't).
But why CAN'T we transcend "occupied withness"? Mostly because we've become a species of thought junkies. Buried in thought indeed! The "thinking about point of view" IS the identified with self. Thinking about, as they say, is the mother of all duality. Reality? No problema, I'll think about it. Death, hey, just another object of thought. Whatever, whatever, and thought thinks about it.
Thus, thought sees itself as being able to separate itself from ANYTHING! Hmmm -- but what about occupied withness? Oh, Oh, but you see that's just the problem because when you're lost in a book, you don't even KNOW you're lost in a book.
Now wait a minute, wait a minute! You mean I can't separate myself from the immediacy ongoingness of being alive so as to put it into dualistic, theoretical perspective. No, and neither can your dog. And neither can your god (if that's your thing). In fact that's a pretty good definition of ultimate realness, i.e., ultimate realness is that which can NEVER be an "object of thought".
But guru types over the centuries keep telling us that reality is on the OTHER side of the veil of maya. So what's on THIS side? No big deal, Plato's cave wall shadows, "mere subjectivity" -- just general, irrational human gorp. But isn't this where our BODIES are? So what? Ultra theoretical physics is now so "disembodied" (no offence, but do any English physicist's come to mind?) that it's indistinguishable from metaphysics. Kant must be turning in his a posteriori grave.
This slight of hand has convinced us that Truth is capturable with thought's butterfly nets. It's taken the raw ISness of being alive and turned it into the subject matter of thought. But gee, isn't this the tail wagging the dog? Isn't the subject matter of thought really the This is It Reality/Universe, and thus not a mere "object" of thought (religious, scientific, or otherwise) but its abyssal origin and ground?
So what are we supposed to do about thought's vicious circling? Not to worry. It's already being dealt with by that which is more real than where that question is coming from.
************************************************************************
Indeed, the very "beginning" notion is a scam, like the luminiferous ether or Descartes' ad hoc pineal gland. In other words, b.s./illusion. For example, let's say you "begin" to read a book. But is this beginning a kind of Newtonian differential (more b.s./illusion) between the not reading and the reading? No, you're either reading the book or you're not reading the book. Simple.
The function of this scam is to validate the beginner. Someone's got to begin the reading, don't they? Nope. Reading is the coming into form of concentration. Entirely real, of course, but certainly not "caused" by any mythical separate self -- and oh yes, this also means there aren't any readers reading these words.
All these redundant agent/selves doing the transitive verb thing are merely ghosts of language. Useful fictions, perhaps, but isn't it about time for our species to grow up?
This is only one of many ways to pop the delusion bubble of consensus reality. Now who just said that? Beats me. Certainly not a ball bearing of autonomy. Who's writing this then? Meaningless question. Or, more accurately, a LEADING question -- as are most questions.
This is related to Wittgenstein's distinction between solvable vs. "dissolvable" problems (or problem/questions). Trying to solve a necessarily dissolvable problem is a variation of the orient's SAMSARA (i.e., vicious circling), such as fearing fear, remembering to forget, or trying to go to sleep on purpose.
What's the alternative? The alternative is giving the finger to Godot and beginning where you are. Of course, the real snapper about Waiting for Godot isn't that there isn't any Godot (which is pretty obvious), but there isn't any "waiter" (which isn't).
But why CAN'T we transcend "occupied withness"? Mostly because we've become a species of thought junkies. Buried in thought indeed! The "thinking about point of view" IS the identified with self. Thinking about, as they say, is the mother of all duality. Reality? No problema, I'll think about it. Death, hey, just another object of thought. Whatever, whatever, and thought thinks about it.
Thus, thought sees itself as being able to separate itself from ANYTHING! Hmmm -- but what about occupied withness? Oh, Oh, but you see that's just the problem because when you're lost in a book, you don't even KNOW you're lost in a book.
Now wait a minute, wait a minute! You mean I can't separate myself from the immediacy ongoingness of being alive so as to put it into dualistic, theoretical perspective. No, and neither can your dog. And neither can your god (if that's your thing). In fact that's a pretty good definition of ultimate realness, i.e., ultimate realness is that which can NEVER be an "object of thought".
But guru types over the centuries keep telling us that reality is on the OTHER side of the veil of maya. So what's on THIS side? No big deal, Plato's cave wall shadows, "mere subjectivity" -- just general, irrational human gorp. But isn't this where our BODIES are? So what? Ultra theoretical physics is now so "disembodied" (no offence, but do any English physicist's come to mind?) that it's indistinguishable from metaphysics. Kant must be turning in his a posteriori grave.
This slight of hand has convinced us that Truth is capturable with thought's butterfly nets. It's taken the raw ISness of being alive and turned it into the subject matter of thought. But gee, isn't this the tail wagging the dog? Isn't the subject matter of thought really the This is It Reality/Universe, and thus not a mere "object" of thought (religious, scientific, or otherwise) but its abyssal origin and ground?
So what are we supposed to do about thought's vicious circling? Not to worry. It's already being dealt with by that which is more real than where that question is coming from.
************************************************************************
