8. The Sexy Way

Play

Podcast: Download (19.2MB)

This week Tom and I are dimming the lights, popping open a bottle of red, and relaxing on a giant water bed as we discuss sex and spirituality. Thanks to Sarah Joy for her song ‘Let me stay’. All comments and questions welcome below.

This entry was posted on Saturday, April 17th, 2010 at 10:28 pmand is filed under podcast. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

23 Responses to “8. The Sexy Way”

  • avatar Peter Barden Says:
    April 19th, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Hey guys,

    a Super ‘enjoyer’? I’ve got some major problems with some of your sexual analysis here – and I would absolutely disagree that there is NO split. There is a split – and life is hardly just about sex and death… and life as a gateway presumes a split (hmm… somehow reminds me of this small hole in the women we’ve all come from), and enlightenment presumes a split (between being and becoming).

    Here I’m more than happy to refer to Freud and his analysis of dreams and sexuality as necessary and fundamental to the discussion. I’ve had many discussions with Buddhists who dismiss Freud without having even read him (for which I’m going to pre-emptively castigate Ben for – read him first before thinking that talking is irrelevant).

    So, considering we’re talking about sex, what are both of your views on Freud’s analysis of sexuality?

    P

    Reply
    • avatar Mike Says:
      April 21st, 2010 at 3:53 am

      Hi Pete!

      Thanks so much for your critical comments and observations :-)

      I’ll try to reply to your last two posts here with a general response and see how it goes…

      First of all I think this is a great opportunity to restate the purpose of this site.

      What we are trying to do in these podcasts and through these comments is deconstruct some of the ideas and assumptions which often cloud spirituality and cause it to stagnate. For Tom and myself, the most important conceptual bubble to burst is the seekers idealisation of ‘Enlightenment’.

      So by pointing to the ordinary, the mundane and commonplace, we hope not to lead people into theoretical or philosophical attitudes, but rather to strip them of any conceptual structures. We want to strip listeners bare of their assumptions and perhaps inspire in them only the curiosity to examine and investigate themselves – Not through theory and intellect, but through direct personal observation.

      For this reason, as fascinating as Freud’s analysis of sexuality is, here is not the place to discuss it. We are not urging theory here, but only direct and personal investigation of what you truly ARE.

      Theories can be intriguing (they have fascinated me all of my life) but what strikes me as infinitely more fascinating is the suggestion that when we look closely, attentively and silently at the nature of our own moment to moment experience, no gap – no separation – can be found between you and it.

      The discovery that you are not what you supposed yourself to be, is the real theme of this site which will naturally interest some and (more often than not) repel others.

      What we speak and write about here is really just noise, just squiggles, unless you are curious enough about yourself to examine your experience sincerely and in earnest. To really do this, all theories must be laid aside, all assumptions given up.

      You must take your glasses off.

      This doesn’t mean they’re useless – The mind is far from useless, indeed it is a miracle. The point is that until you go beyond the mind, you will always conceive yourself through the mind and the mind is by its very nature partial and limited.

      Beyond the mind – yet also appearing as the mind – is what you ARE. Silent aware space which is not some dead and empty Nirvana, but rather the very mouth from which everything is born, second after second.

      The experience of this shatters irrevocably any attachment to philosophical theory. Life is not a thought…it is alive..now..

      I also want to reiterate that Tom and I don’t claim any special knowledge. This is not about gaining some information or being clear about some philosophical argument…its about loosing everything…and becoming totally empty.

      An emptiness which is life itself.

      Whether people on this site explore what they are or not is of course not something we can do anything about (or would). You either do it or not. There’s no sitting on the fence.

      In the meantime, we’re happy to continue suggesting time and time and time again that – really – NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING.

      I hope this gives you a clearer picture of where we’re coming from.

      Mike x

      Reply
  • avatar Peter Barden Says:
    April 23rd, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Hello Mike, Tom & all other readers of this blog,

    What I am fundamentally doing in my critique of the last post is not your rejection of Freud or your project of realising the ontology of ‘ordinariness,’ but your very explicit assumptions about the purpose of the deconstruction of the causality of belief.

    I find it difficult to ‘believe’ that you and Tom would embark upon this topic without considering that this ‘ARE’ or ‘IS’ or whatever symbolic indefinite article you’re categorising is NOT a ‘theory’.

    Whilst I happily tick the box of investigation into analysis and deconstruction, you forget that “some of the ideas and assumption which often cloud spirituality and cause it to stagnate” are your ideologies at play, which should be the thorough investigation and perhaps not of the idealists of enlightenment (at least without descriptive analysis of who these seekers of enlightenment are – I happily include myself in the Descartes/Kantian Enlightenment Euro-centric project and if it be a bubble then puncture it with a better pen than the one you’re ‘not’ bandying about), but the very theoretical phenomenology going on within the blog that can puncture the enlightenment ‘project’ and decide to reject Freud as a ‘theoretician’.
    Welcome to ideology proper, we truly ARE this, but have no room for Freud. Or the possibility of utopian enlightenment. The Middle Path all the way (To where? Don’t ‘think’, we’re already (t)here…!)

    The statement that you aren’t “urging” theory is theory. Your theory, or perhaps your understanding of the “others” understanding of enlightenment really needs to be addressed in this project.

    As crazy as the fundamental problematic underlying the Christian faith appears despite its obvious subversive ‘child-molesting’ factor and the fact that I consider its claims falsifiable, despite considering myself an atheist I am totally in awe of the project, the calendar it created and underlying ideological pre-suppositions it has but still holds.

    If being ‘ordinary’ is anything but an attempt to understand the extraordinary in relation to the ordinary (implied: why do beliefs persist nonetheless?), firstly we have to consider three categorical conceptions within the ‘nature’ you posit as being ‘ordinary’: savagery, barbarity, civility. I won’t investigated them here because “I don’t know anything”.
    Statements such as:

    “What we speak and write about here is really just noise, just squiggles, unless you are curious enough about yourself to examine your experience sincerely and in earnest. To really do this, all theories must be laid aside, all assumptions given up.
    You must take your glasses off.”

    lacks curiosity, examination, sincerity and earnestness. Put your glasses back on, clearly you cannot see anything but your experience but attempt to ignore/deny your past and future.

    And you choose ‘emptiness’ “which is life itself”.

    Fuck.

    ‘Emptiness’ isn’t theoretical?

    So, actually, technically, theoretically and philosophically I propose an alternative: I am an ‘Enlightenment and Euro-centric’ believer to keep you two at least on your toes. In Christian circles they refer to this as the Devils’ advocate. In Freudian parlance they refer to it as denial – what is truly in question in this diatribe (in the literal, moral, ethical etymological sense of the term) is who decides that nothing is going on. You, them, the ‘ARE’ or me?

    I’ve found Ben’s awkward comments about the irrelevancy of dialogue most amusing considering his own participation. Of further interest I’ve found his inability to reply even more amusing.

    So yeah, these are fighting words – they ARE, and you’re wrong about your fetish of ‘ARE’ness as some kind of ingenious method through the complexity of the mind. I find nothing but horror in your conception that:

    “This is not about gaining some information or being clear about some philosophical argument…its about loosing everything…and becoming totally empty.”

    I can presume (by Freudian free-association) that you mean ‘losing’ and not ‘loosing’, but perhaps I’m talking to subjects that aren’t really serious about their emptiness. THIS is my fundamental criticism of not the ‘sex’ blog, but the mission statement of the site: the disclaimer the NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING, despite being Euro-centric in its foundational conception (Socrates said basically the same thing, and they killed him; Jesus proclaimed a similar statement that “they do not know what they do”.

    So, fundamentally, Euro-centrically, Englishly – what is your epistemology, why are you selling it through the means of a blog, what are your ontological co-ordinates that suggest that despite your authority that theory doesn’t apply you believe that theory doesn’t apply, and if this is in any way a political project, considering the great morass of impossibly difficult (although perhaps Euro-centrically caused), problems, and if nobody knows anything why are we already taken Freud off the table?

    Donald Rumsfeld dropped into philosopher mode one day and said:
    “There are known knowns. There are things that we know that we know. There are also unknown knowns. There are things that we know that we don’t know. There are also things that we don’t know that we don’t know.”

    These aspects don’t disturb me. What disturbs me is the ‘unknown’ knows implied by his and your ideological justifications.

    State your presupposition that ‘NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING’ again without the primarily Buddhist primer that actually YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING and are EMPTY and should probably stop trying to sell to the rest of the world that they are as you are.

    I’ve a sense this will be ignored – at least on the site. If anyone would prefer a private dialogue (this topic fascinates me and I’m completely opposed as hopefully I’ve indicated here), catch me at peterabarden@gmail.com

    Otherwise Mike, Tom, I’ve great love but you’re both wrong.

    ‘Posit’.

    Peter.

    Reply
    • avatar Mike Says:
      April 24th, 2010 at 3:50 am

      Hi Pete,

      Thanks for your post. It’s certainly a serious challenge and it’s great to have someone playing a (rather ferocious) devils advocate here.

      Here’s my reply –

      We are not touting a theory of anything here. Why? Because the map is not the territory, the menu is not the taste of the food. We use words and concepts such as ‘emptiness’ or ‘fullness’ fully aware that these are only symbols or signposts pointing beyond themselves.

      The mistake lies in taking symbols literally.

      The finger points towards the moon. Here, on this site, we are concerned with seeing the moon rather than debating which finger we’ve used.

      So, what we are pointing to is beyond the words we use. Any theory or concept can only stretch so far; it can be deconstructed and a counter-argument can be produced again and again and again….

      But what does the word ‘Emptiness’ or ‘Fullness’ or ‘Enlightenment’ point to? We can argue about it until the cows come home, but what does it taste like?

      So beyond names and forms lies the silent mind. Empty of content, empty of past and future, thought and intention. In this state it is free – open and nameless. It IS. It is the very state from which all names and forms arise.

      It is nameless and self-evident This-ness.

      To rest in this unknowing is the doorway to discovering what you are beyond name and form. Beyond your assumptions.

      This is the gauntlet which Martin mentions. It’s up to the individual to do the experiment, to go inside into silence or to question the apparent ‘separation’ and ‘Me-ness’ which seems so real and concrete (but which is actually more like smoke). Otherwise there can be no validity in criticising an experiment which one has not personally performed. It then becomes an argument without recourse to experience.

      Here the experience is paramount.

      All we suggest is the experiment: Stop the mind – drop all labels – be naked awareness. This raw being does not require a name or label. It does not need to be understood. It is self-evident. It is what we are before we name it and after the name has gone.

      Of course, this is a message the mind does not want to hear. Why? Because we are suggesting examining its authority. We have a total investment in the mind and are terrified of its absence, its silence, its death. So, I’m not surprised it horrifies you. It horrifies most people.

      But how are we to know truth directly unless we abandon our symbols for it and perceive directly without adding anything extra to that raw perception?

      We get so absorbed in the adding that we totally forget what we’re adding to.

      When the mind is silent – things are.

      Many people never question their own thoughts. They do not want to face the possibility that they are not their thoughts, not the body, not their feelings: “We have invested x amount of years in these thoughts! This body! These feelings!”

      We assume ourselves to be these things and believe our assumptions to be reality. But really, it’s all just a mind-game; a mis-conception, an interpretation.

      Truth is here when ignorance is not.

      How can we be our thoughts, feelings and emotions, when we perceive our thoughts, feeling and emotions? We are always the observer, never the observed. What is observed changes, always, the fact of observation is a constant.

      So the real question – the question the mind does not want to ask – is who or what is the observer? How can I be my body if I am always looking at my body? How can I be a thought when I always see the thought?

      I must be beyond mind and body.

      What is this looking in which all experience appears? Can it itself be found or located? Are we even interested, or shall we all go back to sleep?

      Let me open this up and ask you Pete – and all the readers here – a question:

      Can we state what we are (because surely we must know!) without it being something which is itself observed? Can we define ourselves without observing our definition?

      Answers on a postcard please.

      :-)

      (Sorry it had nothing to do with sex!)

      Reply
      • avatar Peter Barden Says:
        April 24th, 2010 at 6:19 pm

        Hi Mike,

        Thanks for your answer. I’m uncertain to whether you’ve addressed my critical or simply sidestepped it with some para-doxa. There are, however, some problems in your answers that may do better to elucidate on my position which will perhaps flesh out yours.
        I don’t understand your consistent denial of theory – I presume your notion that there is a place/space/plain ‘beyond’ thought where thought and with it theory falls away or something to that effect. What I’d like to suggest is that, of course, this ‘is’ a theory. By way of demonstrating I’ll use the paradox of the choice presented by Morpheus to Neo in the film ‘The Matrix’. The two pills offered signify a choice between the red pill (reality), and the blue pill (fantasy/fictional dream world). If I can be presumptuous the key difference between our approaches is that I’d gobble them both whereas you would take neither preferring emptiness. What is at play for me here is theory.

        So for me ‘the’ (your) mistake is not taking symbols literally or seriously enough. By throwing out the maps and menus that regulate our perception of the tastes and landscapes you’re missing the functionality of how fictions regulate our reality. I’m not suggesting you are wrong to assert that emptiness is preferable (although clearly I disagree), but your explicit denial that it is a theory of ‘beyond thought’ implied by your assertions is a falsifiable assertion. We can ‘think’ that there is a ‘beyond thought’ which can be happily categorized and labeled a ‘theory’.

        I’ve got some other problems with some of the things you’ve mentioned:

        “To rest in this unknowing is the doorway to discovering what you are beyond name and form. Beyond your assumptions.”

        Why do ‘we’ or would ‘we’ desire this ‘beyond-ness’ you describe? Why do ‘we’ want to get beyond our assumptions? Your assumption seems to be that there is something beyond our assumptions. What is so terrible about our assumptions? If it is a doorway or a choice to do the experiment, does this not imply that there is this gap between thought and unthought?

        “…there can be no validity in criticising an experiment which one has not personally performed. It then becomes an argument without recourse to experience.”

        Why is it invalid to criticize an experiment which one has not personally performed? I’ve never been to the moon, but I can argue that it exists. I’ve never met God or been to Jordan but I can argue they exist.

        “When the mind is silent – things are.”

        When the mind is busy or ‘full’ or whatever, things still are. Why is so problematic, and returning to my original point – how is this not a theory?

        “How can we be our thoughts, feelings and emotions, when we perceive our thoughts, feeling and emotions?”

        What’s the difference/problem? We both ‘are’ and ‘perceive’. There is a gap between this being and becoming, this ‘thisness’ and our perception of ‘thisness’. Why try to throw out both as false?

        “We are always the observer, never the observed.“

        Rubbish. We’re both observers and observed.

        “What is observed changes, always, the fact of observation is a constant.”

        Sure – but what is this change? The object or the observer? What’s your theory?

        “So the real question – the question the mind does not want to ask – is who or what is the observer?”

        Great – again, what’s your theory?

        “How can I be my body if I am always looking at my body?”

        How can’t you be both? Is that your theory?

        “How can I be a thought when I always see the thought?”

        Again, how can’t you be both?

        “I must be beyond mind and body.”

        Theory.

        “What is this looking in which all experience appears?”

        Thought.

        “Can it itself be found or located?”

        You tell me. Have you a theory?

        “Are we even interested, or shall we all go back to sleep?”

        I’m interested, but I think I’ll still sleep too.

        And finally:

        “Can we state what we are (because surely we must know!) without it being something which is itself observed?”

        Yes.

        “Can we define ourselves without observing our definition?”

        No.

        So fundamentally, I can’t agree with your theory when you say you haven’t got one, aren’t touting it as truth or whatever, unless you come to the table and reason your points. We both point at the moon, imagine the moon, see the moon etc… stop asserting that your empirical analysis is all there is otherwise we’ll get nowhere.

        Hope this clears up my (and your) positions.

        Peter

        Reply
        • avatar Mike Says:
          April 25th, 2010 at 10:37 pm

          Hi Pete,

          Any discussion of reality naturally results in paradox simply because words are not adequate to express the Real. As useful as any symbol is, it cannot by its very nature reveal reality through itself. Symbols do not ask to be taken literally (as idols) but it seems the mind is unable to admit that its content is largely symbolic.

          Reality is not a symbol but that which is symbolised.

          Symbols are fine. I have no problem with the minds interpretations. But it must be seen through investigation that the mind IS interpretation. The mind IS a symbol, and for those rare individuals who are interested in just what is being symbolised, then we must stop interpreting for a moment and see what remains.

          Whatever remains must be reality – the source of the symbol.

          You say that fictions (symbols) regulate our reality. I agree. But what we’re concerned with here is looking at the experience of NOT regulating reality. What happens when we strip away regulations, limitations and boundaries? What happens when we observe without interrupting our observation with name and form? How do we define ourselves if we DON’T recourse to mind-born definitions?

          What would happen then?

          Regarding theory, I would be interested to hear what you think is NOT a theory. Is love a theory? Pain? Embarrassment? I get the feeling we could discuss anything here and you would still scream THEORY! But then we could argue that even that is just a theory…the theory that ‘everything is a theory’ is also just a theory….wow….round and round we go…

          But in a way you’d be absolutely right.

          It IS all theory until we go beyond the idea into experience which is exactly what we are suggesting on this site. Theory always takes second place to experiment as any scientist will tell us.

          This is why I am no longer invested in the power of words to describe reality. For me now any menu is less interesting than the taste of the food.

          You argue that your criticism of our suggested experiment is still valid even though you yourself haven’t performed it. As you say, you can argue that Jordan exists without going there. Sure, you can argue anything you want. But how valid is your theory compared to experience? If it’s a choice between finding out about Jordan from yourself or personally going to Jordan, spending time in Amman and absorbing the culture, then your theoretical knowledge is the least credible.

          If something can be experienced then it is not mere theory. I can theorise that actually I’m writing this reply on Venus but that does not change the fact that I’m on the Isle of Man.

          The experience is true. The theory is just theory.

          Argument runs aground without direct experience. It becomes just the mind spewing out ideas without any basis in reality. As with popular conspiracy theories, we can argue for anything and make it sound convincing, but at some point we must ask for proof! Without evidence it’s all just belief.

          For a theory to be proved it must have a method.

          Well, it may shock you, but ‘Emptiness’ is not merely a theory, but a symbol for an experiential reality. When you experience emptiness you realise its truth. But you need to experience to have an opinion otherwise you remain an armchair critic like a football pundit or a back-seat driver.

          All theories should be wedded to methods; ways of experiencing that to which the theory alludes. So, if you want to experience emptiness there are (in the Buddhist tradition) many practices to reveal emptiness. If you are interested then either Tom or I can forward some information to you.

          But are you interested in following this through or just arguing about it? If we are sincerely interested then we engage the practice, we do the experiment and taste the result for ourselves. If not, then fine, we’re not forcing anything. But to refuse the experiment and then continue to criticise its results is plain ignorance.

          So, what can we say other than do the experiment! Test the method!

          Why not?

          Lay aside the mind and plunge into presence. Emptiness is to be seen not argued. It is not the blue pill OR the red pill – it is both and neither; a beautiful paradox.

          If you’re not willing to do the experiment, then fine. But I’m not really interested in propelling a tread-mill of philosophy here. I’d rather be sitting in the sunshine as I’m sure you would! At the risk of exonerating people on this site perhaps we can continue this conversation personally through emails.

          Unless any one else feels like responding…

          ‘Kwatz!’

          Mike x

          Reply
          • avatar Peter Barden Says:
            April 27th, 2010 at 2:37 am

            Hi Mike,

            Thanks again for your reply. I think we’re circling much closer to some of my concerns about both the ontological paradigm and the positions that Tom and you discussed about sex in your podcast. I very nearly completely agree with your assertion that:

            “Any discussion of reality naturally results in paradox simply because words are not adequate to express the Real.”

            This is precisely why I wanted your view on Freud in order to flush out some of your assumptions and thoughts on the ‘Super-enjoyer’ or the ‘beyondness of thought, mind and sex’ within the symbolic realm of language. Lacan’s (a Freudian theorist par-excellence) theory on the relationship between the Real, symbolic and imaginary is very similar in terms of what I believe to be the purpose of your experiment, although his notion of the Real is, from what I understand, the opposite of yours. The ‘beyond-ness’ you posit as the goal of your experiment Lacan suggests is far too traumatic for the subject to cope with, which is why we have these symbolic constructs and imagined realities as a coping mechanism.

            Your response that:

            “You say that fictions (symbols) regulate our reality. I agree. But what we’re concerned with here is looking at the experience of NOT regulating reality.”

            Is precisely why I’ve attempted to flush out what you might expect to disclose in your project. My position is that the experiment has a potentially dangerous component to it – by removing the symbolic fictions that regulate reality we essentially disintegrate reality itself. Why would ‘we’ want to do this? If the goal is the acceptance of this ‘moment’ or whatever as the fundamental idea governing the aim of the experiment then fundamentally I’m opposed. The reason behind this is a political, utopian and ideological ‘enlightenment’ project that I’m fascinated by and obviously feel obligated to defend. So this is why I’m here having this dialogue and am infuriated by the dismissal of discourse as irrelevant. The symbolic representation of the irrelevance symbolic representation is actually a symbolic representation of the fundamental importance of symbolic representation. Although words are not adequate to express the Real, they are worth much more than some responses assume. Ben (for example) presents the argument that language isn’t truth and therefore we shouldn’t even engage in it. Granted it is an argument, but what is the truth of this? What does this reveal?

            “Regarding theory, I would be interested to hear what you think is NOT a theory. Is love a theory? Pain? Embarrassment? I get the feeling we could discuss anything here and you would still scream THEORY! But then we could argue that even that is just a theory…the theory that ‘everything is a theory’ is also just a theory….wow….round and round we go…
            But in a way you’d be absolutely right.”

            I’m quite happy to admit that there are things such as ‘love’, ‘pain’ and ‘embarrassment’ aren’t in and of themselves theories. Can (or should) we get by without a theory of them though? If you’re arguing we should get by without a theory of them, then I disagree. We should be completely rigorous in our attempts to understand how and why they operate. I’m very much invested in the power of words to ‘attempt’ to describe reality, even if one could argue that it will always fundamentally remain a flawed project.

            So your assertion that: “The experience is true. The theory is just theory” is also my concern: it concerns what ‘is’ JUST. If we accept that language is fictitious and that only experience of what is ‘true’ is our presumed goal, then the experience of poverty, war, death, pain, capitalism, globalization etc. as the ‘thisness’ of our reality then yes, I don’t preach acceptance of these conditions and a clearing of the mind or going beyond mind. Getting beyond communication is what I’m questioning the purpose of – is silencing the mind to these conditions the purpose of the praxis, or is it the silencing of the mind an attempt to return to thought with clarity to address these conditions. There are Buddhist Wall Street bankers who engage in the practice you describe to close their minds to the suffering they are essentially responsible for. Certainly I’m not arguing that you’re suggesting this is what the practice should be used for. However I hope you’re now aware of why I find the concept of throwing out theory and ‘just’ engaging in practice is problematic. If anything we should be communicating ‘more’, not ‘less’. If I might suggest a topic for an upcoming podcast, perhaps a discussion on the ethical value of the practice or a discussion on karma and good/evil. I understand that perhaps I’m questioning a few of the values that are intrinsically inherent to the method with some naivety but again I don’t think that this is necessarily problematic.

            However I don’t think I’ve engaged in a critique of the actual method per se. I think you’ve taken exception to my question “Why is it invalid to criticize an experiment which one has not personally performed?” I’m critiquing your mode of communicating the method and enquiring into why you refute it is a theory for the reasons I’ve suggested above. As Martin mentioned there is no suggestion that you’re engaged in some epistemological project, rather your interested in the practical application of experiential methodology which doesn’t require a watertight philosophical defense. Great! Box ticked! I’m certain for some the method has an amazing therapeutic value and perhaps once these theoretical problems I’ve posed have been fully addressed I may have a different appreciation of the method – I’ve tried it and found I had certain difficulties with the reasoning behind the method, which I’ve tried to (quite aggressively as you mention) break open in a dialogue. I too am not forcing anything. I take these ideas and notions very seriously and the method/theory perhaps I’m touting is rigorous philosophical enquiry into ideas and practices. Again I agree that all theories should be wedded to methods and practices.

            I hope you appreciate my concern with the reasoning behind the value of the practice as I do think there are many similar concerns and concepts that we share about these matters, as I certainly appreciate the effort that you’ve gone to in order to explain your theoretical underpinnings of the method. It isn’t all just noise and squiggles. There is still a ‘truth’ to symbols, to the imagination, to reality as such. There is ‘still’ good and evil.

            There is ‘still’ a theory behind the ‘thisness’ of the practice.

            Cheers,

            Peter.

  • avatar martin kovan Says:
    April 23rd, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    i havn’t heard the ‘sexy pod’ yet – in a monastery avoiding same! – but Peter perhaps one nexus of the issue/problem is that M/T are not proposing epistemic arguments per se. They are offering (not as systematic theoretical structures) ontological options for potential experience it is our own onus to experiment with or not. And the nature of ontological possibility is that it partakes of epistemic paradox, particularly in its aspect of conceptual translation in language. In that sense is there a Quixotic windmill/pinana-tilting potentially hijacking experiential engagement? This is the gauntlet thrown out, and seems to me it doesn’t have to require a watertight theoretical defense. Even tho yr reservations are excellent in the most English/Kantian sense of the term. More please – from both sides of this particular epistemic divide.

    Reply
  • avatar Mike Says:
    April 28th, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Hi Pete –

    Nice post! I’m glad we’re getting somewhere!

    Thanks for your comments and insightful observation. I like Lacan’s notion of our symbols as a coping mechanism. As I wrote previously, the mind cannot comprehend the loss of mind…it’s a horrifying thought. Also I am certainly not advocating a silent mind which just absorbs the ‘thisness’ of genocide, rape and poverty. I think when talking about ‘emptiness’ this kind of bleak dumb nihilism can come across.

    So, let me just restate my (and I think Tom’s) aims here, and hopefully this can act as manifesto too…

    Ok, so let me begin by stating emphatically (note capitals) that THERE IS NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER WITH THE MIND. As you implied in your previous reply: it’s ALL reality. Our symbols reflect a core nowness or thisness but these reflections are also part of REALITY.

    This is my fundamental point: IT’S ALL REALITY. Every last drop of it. There will never be and can never be anything outside of reality. Reality is all there is.

    Yet many people spend their entire lives searching for reality, for truth, God, Enlightenment, Oneness, the end of Suffering, bliss, or the end of the Ego….

    But if it’s ALL reality then there is no false to abandon, no real to move towards. So my core message is that what we are looking for – is what we already ARE (eg. Reality).

    But there is a paradox here. Yes, its all reality, but we don’t believe it. We don’t believe this is reality and we certainly don’t believe that WE are good enough to be it. We think it can’t be this…this is far too simple…too obvious…reality must be complex…hidden…esoteric…selective!

    It’s all reality but we’re taught and conditioned to only emphasise the PARTS. The mind is the director-general of the Part, the specific, the fragment. There is nothing wrong with this (how can reality be wrong?), but because we seem to be hypnotised by the parts (thoughts, ideas, concepts etc) we become ignorant of the whole. It could be said that we become unconscious of reality.

    We forget what we are even though we are it.

    Many people get caught in labels and name, they get caught in the mind and then define themselves through the mind. Then they see themselves as parts and long for wholeness (God, truth, oneness etc). Then the search begins…..

    But actually the dialogue, the naming is a vital part of this.

    Why?

    Because we require symbols to KNOW this nameless this-ness. For reality to know itself it needs media – the mind: interpretation. Reality IS, but to know itself (through us) it needs to see its reflection in ideas and thoughts and feelings. There are no words no symbols to adequately describe life, and yet, the words and communication flow…

    If you know you’re everything (or nothing – being everything/nothing is exactly the same thing) then this site won’t be of any use to you. All we can hope to do is speak from our experience about how certain conceptual barriers to Reality can be defused and to repeat time and time again that you ARE what you’re looking for. For someone who believes they are a PART of reality and not the WHOLE then perhaps something said here can be of help?

    Sure it’s all theory – a theory to defuse another theory. But to dive into reality, to what you are, can sometimes bring this intellectual puzzle into living breathing mystery. It’s like the words on the screen, both are real, but we always focus on the words and somehow don’t see the beautiful clear spaciousness of the page. Yet, no page, no words.

    Ultimately, it’s not enough to think it…we have to live it…totally. How do we live it? By recognising what we are – and that we’re already living it. In fact, we can’t do anything else.

    Reality is total.

    Thanks for your podcast suggestions; I think we’ll take up your idea. It’s actually close to the kind of thing Tom and I have been discussing lately.

    This my personal take on what’s really going on but I hope it clarifies the point that although dialogue and thoughts and ideas can be negated as a ‘way’ of seeing the space behind them, they can also be emphasised and embraced in the all-ness that they are never-the-less a part of.

    Mike x.

    Reply
  • avatar Gilbert Says:
    June 1st, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    Good stuff. We could say that it is thought provoking stuff but that would be rather ordinary to say that. Where do thoughts come from anyway? And is there a cause for thought? The ego-centric leanings of the populus (?) always love a platform to parade upon, or so it seems. I love being ordinary. I tried being special for a little while but it always fell flat on its non existing face. Mike and Tom are exceptionally ordinary guys. They are not even gay, which would at least lend a little colour to their ordinariness.
    One can only clap and cheer them on.
    May the ordinary beige-ness of life flood their living rooms and fill all of our hearts with joyous beige coloured ornamental ‘things’ of non descriptive values. Hail to all ordinary beings and down with those who profess to be above us…..in a cloud or on a raised platform.
    Be kind to each other…..LIFE is all encompassing.
    Ask any seagull.

    Reply
    • avatar tombh Says:
      June 1st, 2010 at 5:23 pm

      “They are not even gay”! Ha, I laughed out loud :D

      Lovely comment, bless you Gilbert.

      Reply
    • avatar Mike Says:
      June 2nd, 2010 at 4:51 am

      Thanks Gilbert!

      I’m glad you agree with our vision of a beige world…:-)

      I think your comment about trying to be special and failing hits the nail on the head. For anyone new here it may be worth repeating the quote on our title page.

      It’s by the Zen Patriarch Te-Shan who says:

      “What is known as ‘realising the mystery’ is nothing more than breaking through to grab an ordinary persons life”.

      Awakening to what you are is extra-ordinary otherwise we woudn’t even be talking about it. But being what you are is easy, simple and obvious. Your freedom is totally free. Freely given.

      In the words of Valery Larbaud ‘It’s yours even before you come to deserve it’.

      There are no gaps, no boundaries. Any apparent separation you go looking for will fade into nothingness. You are pure space.

      And yet….this space is very very ordinary.

      Afterwards the mundane is the beautiful mundane, and whereas before it might make you angry or apathetic, afterwards every grey cloud breaks your heart, every bus that glides by appears from void..every page from the photocopier is only yourself.

      Your’e everything and nothing. Now.

      Thanks again for your kind words and not falling upon us with the rage of Manjushri.

      Drop in any time.

      x

      Reply
      • avatar tombh Says:
        June 4th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

        “every grey cloud breaks your heart, every bus that glides by appears from void..every page from the photocopier is only yourself”

        This is gold Mike! Sheer genius :)

        Reply
  • avatar Sucker4seeking Says:
    June 2nd, 2010 at 8:23 am

    there is no way to this place that you speak of. A ‘way to’ suggests place to get to… A way suggests that there is someone that can take this way…and yet there is still a broken hearted longing for something else. This something else is something I have heard and I take it to be true. This end game is just another concept I have taken to be true. all the concepts are just concepts. All the words are pointless. I don’t know who I am and I only care about asking because I feel like I will gain something. Investigate and find out who wants to know…. Find out that there is no one and then you will find peace.

    I have searched high and low. There is a mental understanding but it is as useless as theory. some minds like to chew forever on the bone that appears as life. All I want for christmas is this long lost freedom.

    apparently there is no one but they say investigate. Who can investigate?

    So I am writing on the off chance that u guys might help ring bells..

    I want to be free. So when I write there is no way… I still hope that there is a way… And despite hearing it over and over again that there is no one that can find anything.. Hope still creeps its head up, so I potter from one site to the next…. Aware of the total lack of control. Aware that I cannot predict anything.. aware that all these things happen as they do…unable to find an I. But there is still a me that is unable to find…

    Lads tell me that there is no room left at this inn because even as i write.. I see that it is pointless…

    The heart beats.
    The nails grow
    The hair grows
    Bruised skin heals itself
    I have no role in any of these
    And a thousand other bodily functions yet apparently there I am doing the thinking
    Yet I cannot find this me that thinks.
    As clear as day
    But this is known. Not experienced.
    nonduality is known
    But it is no lived.
    It is another useless idea that has replaced heaven and the twenty virgins..

    Anyways!!!!!!! Sure if something comes as a response, I would hope that it will be heard here…

    From another me!!

    I

    Reply
  • avatar Sucker4seeking Says:
    June 5th, 2010 at 1:08 am

    @tom
    Ah just ramblings of a someone try to get it which is it as well but there is someone still that knows this so it’s not true. It’s a thought. And all the while I write about it it is missed as I am sure the very thing I am looking for is ‘writing’.

    …….
    yearning is what is happening.
    What can I do..
    The best advice is one of hopelessness.
    Ie no hope for the individual.

    I have one cheeky eye open still seeking..which is why I am still here.

    There are so many out there with an agenda. On first glance your site feels like there is none. No agenda that is…perhaps no one to have an agenda…

    Everything is it!! But all the while I am here trying to see that, it is hidden.

    blah blah blah

    The isle of man eh? I spent a few summers hanging kippers in Peel would u believe and largin it up in a club in douglas called the Tardis giving it socks to the manic street preachers… No idea how I ended up there. No idea how I ended up here ;)

    Reply
    • avatar Mike Says:
      June 5th, 2010 at 8:37 pm

      Hi Sucker4seeking!

      Thank you for your heartfelt comment. I loved your spontaneous poem too. It felt very real and bittersweet. I’ve been there too.

      Funny you know the Isle of Man! And funnier still you should mention the Tardis! I grew up in there and Bushy’s bar, playing drums in bands then moshing to RATM on the Tardis dance-floor. Happy days! I get the feeling I may even know you, at least through other people.

      Anyway…so, you know the inn is full, you know there’s nothing to buy, nothing ‘you’ can ‘do’ to ‘get it’ blah blah blah. Good. I meet few people like you. This was my own story.

      From your words above I can tell you’ve put all of this behind you and are just waiting for the executioners axe to chop off your head. It may feel lonely, confused and desperate, but it’s the mud from which flowers bloom.

      I don’t know if these words can help you. It’s often said that words are dead when conveying this, but paradoxically they can also have a profound effect if they hit their target…somehow.

      Self-enquiry was never a big thing for me and I think that it can remain a fruitless search because one still doesn’t know what they are looking for. You only see it when you stop looking, but you can only really stop looking when you see it.

      I always think that we get off on the wrong foot looking for the non-self or emptiness or nirvana or enlightenment etc. For me these are too conceptual and the mind can only guess at it. The worst thing is when you start to believe your guesses.

      I searched for these things for 10 years and didn’t find them. What I finally did find – or rather found me – was so obvious and unexpected that it took me by complete surprise. Actually it totally ambushed me and I’m still reeling from it.

      So I can only really speak from my own experience here. Let’s give it a go shall we? Just for fun! Let’s leave aside theory and start from scratch. Back to basics. We can be idiots together just few minutes.

      Relax you mind. Maybe take a few moments to close your eyes and become present before reading on…

      So much of our experience of the world and ourselves is visual, so we’ll begin there. Look at an object, it can be anything; this word, the screen, your hand, a tree, anything you like. Ok, now just stop thinking for a moment and be interested in how it looks. Don’t add names, keep the mind quiet and just see. Easy.

      What you are seeing is a fact. It is there. To argue is to think. Be dumb and see. What you are seeing is just there, it is self-evident, obvious. Beyond doubt.

      Ok, now notice how the object is actually seen only in seeing. You are seeing and the object is there in it. There is no division between your seeing and the object is there? No, the seeing is the object. We could say that the object is made out of seeing!

      So look around and notice that everything you see is made from your own seeing. There can be nothing seen that is outside if your seeing. Everything you look at is made from the fabric of seeing.

      This can be a powerful realisation. That wherever you go, all you’re ever seeing is made from your own seeing! The same seeing sees many different things, yet all things can only be made from your own seeing!

      Now try to notice if there is any distance between you and the object. Is there a boundary or line between you and what you see?

      No. The seen is just there. We may say the bottle is ‘over there’, but the bottle and the distance only exist as part of sight. And where does sight happen? Here – in Me.

      How close is here?

      Well for me, when I look at any object it’s like there’s a wide space where I think my face is and everything fills that space. Anything I look at fills it. It doesn’t just fill it partially – but totally. I am this wide space which contains what is seen. This seeing, this hereness, happens so close to me, so intimately within me, that actually I cannot perceive any distance at all. I am the Here.

      So there are two things to notice here; that everything you see is made from your own seeing and that therefore everything you see happens not ‘out there’, but only in your immediacy, right here, and this hereness is so close that you are already merged with it. You are this intimate hereness.

      You are what you see because what you see is only your own seeing. It never takes place ‘out there’ for ‘distance’ also happens in seeing and all seeing only happens ‘here’ in the intimate immediacy of your experience.

      There is no distance between you and seeing: you literally are what you see.

      Now try this with other sensations. Try finding where sound happens, how close is sound to you? Is not sound only made of your own hearing? And doesn’t sound always happen ‘here’?

      Are not your current sensations only made from your own feelings? And doesn’t your feelings always happen ‘here’, intimately?

      Life is not something ‘out there’. It is so intimate, so close and so full. This is what we miss. We put concepts between this freely given intimacy and the obvious fact of fullness. It’s the labels and words which seem to split things apart.

      So what are you amongst all this fullness? Well, you are so full that you are merged with all things, all experiences and sensations. You are merged with every thought and perception. It’s all you.

      Why? Because there is no boundary between your perceptions and yourself. It all happens Here. Intimately.

      You are ALL things. No gaps can be found. Life floods in. No ‘you’ to stop it. Even the idea of ‘You’ has flooded in without your choice; it too is only your own awareness.

      Your whole life you have thought that you were separate from the world. In fact you missed how close the world was to you, that it only happens within you. Your room, your body and sensations, your friends and family, the ocean, the Himalayas, the Sun, Moon and Cosmos are all made from you. You are all of these things.

      See it all as yourself. Claim your birthright. Even your doubts are just one more flavour of yourself. Just to make life a bit more interesting!

      There is absolutely nothing to get rid off or avoid. Just see how everything is already caressing you tenderly whispering your name. When this is realised, then all that falls away is the strong conviction that you were ever a limited separate being, and then this realisation bears its own fruit both in understanding and action.

      You are all and all is you. This is not a cliché, this is fact. See it.

      Forget emptiness and non-self: See how vast and full you are in each moment.

      You are happening to yourself.

      Stay with this quiet and obvious fullness.

      Your friend,

      Mike.

      (PS if you feel like this has helped or you want to speak more in person, email contact@beingordinary.org and we can either exchange emails or speak on skype. If not, best of luck in relaxing into what you are).

      Reply
  • avatar Sucker4seeking Says:
    June 8th, 2010 at 9:07 am

    @ mike.

    Hi

    Thanks for your caring words back.

    I am not sure if they helped but I know I was warmed by the earnestness of your words back to me…

    I read the words a few times. There is that want that tries to get it whilst reading.. The answer is not in the words and yet mind loves words. is mind anything other than an echo, a ghost? What is thought but language and yet it binds me. And so I look for freedom using words to understand other words.
    Life is seen through a veil of language… It’s like watching a movie with the commentary from a director or actor… You can’t watch the movie properly.

    thought finds hope in anything.. Anything but this. so when I read flowers out of mud, i start to sense hope.. But thought will find hope in anything. Anything but this!!

    Anyways thank u for your words and I will drop you an email.

    Oh bushys..bushys.. I remember well drinking that home brew before hitting the Tardis ;-)

    Reply
  • avatar Lexa Says:
    July 1st, 2010 at 2:19 am

    Hi,
    I’m of the F gender, so, as you said at the beginning of your podcast regarding your own gender, I may have a bias I’m not so aware of.

    I’ve always looked upon sex mainly as giving/ abandoning/surrendering, and inevitably found myself playing the “resistance” game as I didn’t want any of the above to happen (control, anyone?). Can this be reflected in my relationship to the bigger greater surrender? It can’t happen because I’m not surrendering even with sex (who is there to surrender anyway, and all that jazz, I know!). Well, as you’ve been brave & light enough to take on the parallelism, I wonder if you reckon that the inner workings of the ego can be at play in the same way in both fields, and if it makes any sense whatsoever to use the leverage I have with sex as a means to practise surrender. I hope this is clear.

    Oddly enough, I’ve come across this podcast whilst at the verge of an opportunity of entering a new sexual relationship ;-) Thanks

    Reply
    • avatar tombh Says:
      July 2nd, 2010 at 5:57 am

      Hi Lexa,

      Thanks for your lovely comment :)

      About using sex as a medium for a greater spiritual surrender, I certainly think sex can offer that, but perhaps not in the most obvious way. I guess one’s first thought about surrender with regard to sex is in the actual physical act of it, therefore giving oneself over completely to your partner. However, for me, I understand the surrender in the wider context of the sexual relationship as a whole with all it’s aspects. So I would say that the surrender is more about the radical acceptance of all the *emotions* that a sexual relationship so often generates.

      And the most significant emotion to engage with here is love. Which ultimately, because of its ability to totally consume one’s identification with a separate self, is infinitely more ‘erotic’ than any physical act of sex.

      Good luck in your new relationship! Exciting :D

      Reply
  • avatar Lexa Says:
    July 3rd, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Hi Tom, thanks for your reply which I’ve found of great great HELP.
    The intensity of the search dropped a while ago, so I may have found something ^to do^ instead, who knows… :-O

    Reply
  • avatar Peter Says:
    January 11th, 2012 at 3:59 am

    Ah, the sexy (s)way. I spent some time re-reading these posts again Mike and Tom. I bumped into Martin yesterday who remembered our dialogues from this post. I had to remind myself of what I’d written. I’m more than pleased that my antagonisms were at least helplful, albeit ordinary. I wish you both well in your discoveries and hope that reality isn’t so impossible that we can’t meet in person again.

    Much love,

    Peter

    Reply

Leave a Reply