This week has been a bit hectic, as I am preparing to move to Tokyo. I’ll be there on Thursday morning. So daily living will have a new appearance. It is an exciting time.

Due to all of the running around, and general increased activity for moving preparations, there will be no Question of the Week on Monday. I wouldn’t be able to put in much time to interact with anyone that responds to the question, and interactivity is what that post is all about. 

But, rest assured, there will be one next Monday.

There will not be many posts for this week, but I will pick up the pace after things have settled down. It should be no more than one week.

See you then.

Takuin

P.S. - Feel free to keep posting comments on the previous questions, or on anything you wish to comment on. I will reply to every comment, but probably not during this week.

In the last Question of the Week post, I was asked, more or less, “Can one have a goal without being dualistic?” I understand the question, and I can see why it could cause some confusion. I have always had thoughts on this subject. It is interesting to me, because I enjoy the work of many authors in the self-development area. I guess you could say I’m a fan of the genre.

 I can see why one would think it to be dualistic. In many cases, the mind sees the goal, and the self constantly thinks, “I must get it, I must get it.” This thinking can lead to violence, but, it can also lead to getting the goal, whatever it happens to be.

Think of it from different perspectives for a moment. Some might think that a goal to get a BMW to be selfish and destructive. But how is that different from having a goal to feed starving children? I understand that the end result is different; I am not talking about that. The process in the mind is the same. That is all.

If there is something someone wants to do, then why don’t they do it? They always have to affirm, or self-motivate, or visualize. Why can’t they just do it? If someone has to motivate themselves to achieve a goal, why are they doing it in the first place?

Does Chick Corea have to motivate himself to play piano? Does Stephen King or John Irving have to motivate themselves to write? Did Akira Kurosawa have to motivate himself to make a film? There are, of course, some people that feel the need to do that, but could they have accomplished their work without it? Of course. But these are things we’ll never really know unless we do it ourselves.

It always struck me in this way; if you have to constantly motivate yourself to do something, or to achieve some goal, then why are you doing it? If there is something that you love to do, above all else, do you have to remind yourself to do it? Do you need external motivation? Do you have to “prepare” to do it? (Other than gathering whatever external materials you might need.) No, because you are probably already doing it without thinking about it.

If there is something you really love to do, nothing other than action is involved. If you really love it, then do it! That has always been interesting to me. Those people that really love their work do not have to think about it at all. The action has become a natural expression of their being. They don’t complain about what they have to do, there is only joy in the doing. The goal will come, but there is only action.

Don’t get me wrong, if one sets a goal for a specific result there is nothing wrong with that. If they really love what they are doing, then there is no struggle. They are completely expressing what they are.

Let’s take an example of someone with the skill of acting. Actor A does all the things you might expect of an actor. He waits tables, lives in cramped quarters, and takes whatever roles he can get. He wakes up in the morning, and affirms that he is going to be a raging success and make all kinds of obscene money. He reads the papers for work, and laments doing the things he has to do. When it comes time to act, he always hesitates, procrastinates, and rarely ever gets into it.

Actor B also waits tables, and lives in a tiny hut of an apartment. She takes roles when she can get them, and enjoys the process. When she wakes up in the morning she also affirms. Her affirmations are that she’ll be a superb actor, able to transmit her emotional content to the audience, entertain them, and be able to touch their hearts. But she doesn’t lament what she has to do. In fact, instead of reading the paper, she goes over the the mirror and starts to practice. She acts, whether there is a camera there or not. She doesn’t have to even think about it. It has become such an important part of her life, that it IS her life. That is all she thinks about because that is her talent. That is what she does.

Most people would ask the question, “Which one will be successful?” But I like to ask, “Which one is already successful?”

If there is something that one loves to do, they do it. They might affirm and all of that, but they don’t necessarily need to; the object of their affirmation is already alive.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with goals or affirmations, etc. If you want to do something, but don’t know how, find out how, and do it. It is not a mystery.

If someone really loves what they do, then the process is just as important as anything else. Then there is no need to affirm, because it is all already there. There is no duality in the act of a person that loves what they do in this way, because what they love to do is already within them.

Can the self surrender?

“I am free.”

“I have let go of the self.”

“I am free of ego.”

“I am enlightened.”

People throw these words around quite a bit. But is there meaning to any of this? Is there any merit, or can anything be expressed there in a natural way?

If one says, “I am free,” what exactly do they mean? The “self” is free? Free from what? Is there anything to be free from at all?

You might say we can be free from sorrow or pain, greed or jealousy, or whatever it is. But in order to be free from it, we first have to be separate from it, which we are not. In the mind, it is always me and sorrow. It is always somewhere else, and it suddenly appears and attacks. That is all so silly. We are the very sorrow we wish to be free from. So how can we, the self, ever be free from it? Is it a possibility?

Why do we always see the sorrow and say, “I want to be away from that,” and we think we are making progress? How can we, the self, ever be away from that? WE ARE IT. There is no separation here. It is not us and sorrow; it is just sorrow. One and the same.

Some might say that we need to surrender the self. Well what does that mean? Surrender the self to what? And this thing that we are surrendering to, is it also composed of thought? People so easily throw these words around. If it is possible for the self to surrender, it surrenders to nothing. It does not trade for something else, and it cannot surrender to an idea or concept. If the self surrenders to a concept, and that concept is absorbed and adopted by the self, then nothing has changed. Sure, the self has some new clothes, but it is still the self.

Can the self surrender?

That is the wrong question to ask. The better question is:

Can this organism be free of the self?

I look forward to your replies on this one.

The first is from Nur:

Thanks for the compliments, Nur. I appreciate it.

When I say I surrender I mean I let go of all wants and desires. I simply give in to what is happening and let it happen. I let thought be, and don’t interfere in the happening of anything. Internally or externally.

That is a wonderful way of putting it. But let’s go into the language a bit. We are probably saying the same thing, though. If I say, “I am letting go of the wants and desires,” and I really mean it, then there is duality present. In that case it is “I” and desire. But in reality the “I” IS the desire. Therefore, it is only desire (or maybe, “I” is desire).

But I think we are speaking the same language here.

Next is from Albert @ Urbanmonk.net:

Takuin, thanks for another great perspective into non-duality. But are you saying that in admitting we are desire, and so on, it changes? Let’s say I’m dealing with a problem of neediness, which stems from my childhood. I have this tendency to say “Oh I want to get rid of it.” But if I become and acknowledge that I am this neediness, what happens? Will I still be needy, display needy traits, and so on?

Great question, Albert. And you are right. But it is not enough for us to admit something on merely an intellectual level. Let’s see what comes up.

There is no need to admit or concede to desire (or neediness). In those cases, either admittance or conceding, there is a being that is taking the action. “Someone” must concede or admit. If the self surrenders as an action (the self experiences pain, or whatever it is, and decides to see it in order to be free of it), then what will happen?

A step taken by the self, in order to gain liberation, is a step deeper in to the prison cell. The action of the self toward freedom is just a ploy to ensure its own continuity. “I am becoming free,” and therefore, the self can continue to exist in a different pair of pants. But the self will carry with it those problems it wanted to be free from in the first place.

Now, if that is true, keeping in mind that no action of the self is possible, what will happen? If it is understood that any action of the self toward liberation is limited, and then “neediness” surfaces, what happens? Is anyone there to meet it? If no, then how is it observed, if no one is there to observe it? We could say that it is merely seen, but it is seen by no one. It is observed; the movement is observed, but nothing is going to record it.

It doesn’t seem right that these problems come from being needy. Or even from the self trying to be free. The bigger problem seems to be the center itself. It sets itself up for business and tries to control everything.

If the center is the projector, the creator of the problems, then why is it necessary at all? Some might say, “If I have no center, I will live in chaos.” Well, look at the world as it is. We are already there.

It is interesting to think; we are worried that we will live in chaos without the self, but we are already there. So instead of liberation, we remain within the chaos we have already created. Or you might say, by losing the self, we think we will get what we already have. Seems so strange to me.

Another way to look at it is how Byron Katie explains it. (You probably know this already, Albert.) “You walk through the forest and come upon a snake. You are instantly afraid and jump back to avoid being bitten. But upon closer inspection, you see that it is not a snake, but a rope. Now, is it possible to stand over that rope, even if for a thousand years, and ever be afraid of it again? No, because you have seen it for what it is. I have found that every stressful thought is a rope.”

If you do this, the thing is seen for what it is. Once this comes to light, there is no way you will ever be able to stick your hand in the fire again. It won’t move you at all because it is a rope.

I hope that made some sense.

And another set of questions from Nur:

“So you’re saying, (to Albert), that we shoudn’t try to liberate our self, or find a centre etc as this is also a trap and a deeper one at that. Also you’re saying there is no stressful thought, no negativity with potency to harm us, as harm is a product of our own perspective. All we have to do is see that ‘all is always well’. It just is and thats it. Please correct me.”

The center is the source of the problem. It thinks itself separate from everything else. “I have misery,” instead of the reality of, “The I is misery.” It is not separate from its experience, but it believes it is. The self doesn’t see itself as the problem, because it only sees from its own perspective. If one sees from the perspective of the self, then there is immediate separation.

It is within this rift, between the self and what it perceives, that the problems arise. “Things are this way, but they should be that way.” There is immediate tension, as the self cannot reconcile itself with reality, for whatever reason. If reality is seen as it is, perceived without the prejudices of the self, then there is no tension. How could there be?

“Alberts’s blog introduction talks how one can be a monk (finding peace, the moment , etc) and also be urban (career, relationships). What do you think? On one hand, we accept the moment and be, and another we want to manifest better careers, love etc. If the organism is free of the self, to want to be somewhere is an indication of dissatisfaction, or need for more etc Or is it? I find this contradiction very difficult to grasp ? How can the organism be free of the self yet live with intentions, aims for the future.”

I wrote a short post similar to what you are talking about. This is the link:

http://www.takuin.com/2007/08/28/living-in-thought/
I see nothing wrong with setting goals and doing things one loves to do. It would be wrong to limit one’s expression simply because a guru told them to do it. I have seen this many times. Some guru, enlightened person, or whoever it is, says that in order to be free you have to do this, this, and this. You can’t have a goal and you can’t strive to change your outer world. Things are as they are, and you cannot take any movement toward a goal. (Or whatever it is they say.)

And what do the followers of the guru do? They immediately accept it as true, without trying to see it for themselves. They say, “He is over there and I am here, and he says if I do or don’t do something, I can be with him.” They become mechanical humans. Nothing natural is ever expressed because they are constantly trying to be something they are not.

And what happens if you should tell one of those followers about your goals? They immediately tell you it is the wrong thing to do because of this, this, or this reason. But they are just repeating something that was told to them. And they never looked into to it to see if it was true in the first place. They just repeat and repeat, ad nauseum.

The truth is, there is nothing the self can do to be free. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t freely express yourself. If one has a talent to do something, why not do it? People, for some reason, do not express themselves naturally. They instead focus on what they “should be” doing. I say, if you are going to do something, then damn it, do something! Don’t talk about it or think you should be doing something else. When you take an action, be there within that action 100%. Be wherever you are, without thinking of the illusion of where you should be.

I hope that is somehow helpful to you. Thanks for the great questions, Nur.

This question was posed to me by Albert @ Urbanmonk.net. If you haven’t been to his blog, get over there and check it out. It is a premiere personal development site.

“As a ’self-less’ person, do you have uncontrolled thoughts? And if you do, how would you stop them?”

What is there to control, and who will control it? If one is “self-less,” there can be no control. The self is the center of control.

There are no uncontrolled thoughts; only thoughts. Whether it seems controlled or uncontrolled has nothing to do with the thought itself. It only has to do with your conflicting ideas about the thought. It is always, “Why am I thinking of this? I should be meditating and having a quiet mind.” But, IS THAT TRUE? Because if your mind is chattering away, that is reality. Sit with what is real. Watch it come and go.

One might think of uncontrolled thought as something that comes and goes with no rhyme or reason. But what is thought, other than a reaction of memory? I am not sure at all that thought springs from nothing. If thought is a reaction to memory, an effect, then there must always be a cause, regardless of whether we see it or not.

If one is observant, he or she may even be able to find the source of the thought. It is not so difficult to do. Neither is it a mystery. But I don’t see the importance of it.

I sometimes hear people say (or see people type), “I can stop my thoughts.” This is amusing. If your thoughts are stopped, how did you type those words (or how did you say them)? And what is the “I” that is stopping the thought? The self is composed of thought, so how can it stop itself? If someone comes to a point where they think they have “stopped” thought, then they should really go into it to see what is there. If the self is in operation, it operates through the world of thought. No, it IS the world of thought. It is not separate from its material of construction. The self IS thought, and not the self AND thought.

Thoughts come and go, but control keeps us attached. Why do we need to control? We only need to control if there is the idea that we are out of control. For whatever reason. Insecurity, grief, hate, jealousy, or whatever reason, wanting to control springs from a need to control the chaos that seems to be there. But of course, there is no real chaos in that sense.

Some might say that ALL thought is chaotic, and I could understand that. But thought is only chaotic when compared to other thoughts. How can one know chaos unless they have experienced what they perceive to be order? The truth is, thought is just thought. Anything that tells us differently is thought as well. (Comparison, belief, etc.)

Akiko always tells me I am too imaginative. (not in a serious way. After all, how can one be “too” imaginative?) I have a tendency to say things she never expects. Other people have made similar comments. Maybe it is due to having no restrictions of thought. Of course, I do not say things just to shock someone, and I do not insult other people. I do not mean “no restrictions” in that way. There is simply no need to control thought. It comes and goes. Interesting combinations of thought are more readily at hand, compared to my life before.

A few days ago, I took a day long trip to see Shomyo Falls. It is a beautiful waterall located on a peak in Mount Tateyama. It was a beautiful day, and very relaxing.

Here are a few technical details:

Shomyo Falls is the tallest waterfall in Japan, however, it’s sibling, Hannoki Falls, visible from the same location (which you will see in some of my photos), is actually taller, but is often disregarded because it’s seasonal. Shomyo Falls drop down four steps, 229 feet, 190 feet, 314 and 413 feet respectively. The pool at the base of the falls is 200 feet wide and 20 feet deep.

Welcome to Shomyo Falls

The weather was lovely, but the clouds were low…or maybe we were quite high up the mountains? I am not sure.

There were butterflies everywhere, it seemed, and mini-waterfalls were on every curve of the path. A wonderful scene.

I have said it before that spending time in nature, a good deal of time, can do wonders for inquiry. Nothing shuts-up the self faster than the wonders of nature!

Try it for yourself this weekend, wherever you are. Wake up early on Saturday, drive to a magnificent area, and spend the day. Inquire into things in that environment.

If you think your “self” is loud, it cannot overcome the beauty of nature. Nothing is louder or more silencing than beauty beyond thought.