Writings in the SKeye
The UnravelingTue, October 25, 2005 - 12:20 AM
"...People whined about taxes and conscription, as they always have; but there was an emptiness beneath the apathetic passion play of politics. The center had frayed like a rag rug that had been washed and walked on and shaken and hung and dried. The lines and nets of mesh which held the last jewel at the breast of the world were unraveling. Things were not holding together. The earth drew in it's breath in the summer of the coming eclipse."
(from Wizard and Glass, 4th book of the Dark Tower series)
There appears to be a cycle of 'unraveling' occurring. That the world society has wound itself up tightly and Nature/Life is, quite naturally without malice, unraveling the facades that have been erected. It is felt that the more there is resistance to this unraveling, an effort to maintain some semblance of "control" or "cohesion"(an image of "keeping it together"), the more difficult it is and will be.
I have felt a story around the need to separate "spirituality" and "activism", as if they are actually entities and that "they" could be separated. The willingness to be here on tribe and share, communicate, commune, is that there is no longer a belief in definitions to the degree that they impede knowing the truth of "no definitions" that appear to separate. In other words: I am merely communing about/with 'life/self'.
There can be a belief that life/self can be compartmentalized, "tribed" if you will, but in reality it is all "connected", not ever really separate. There can be an engagement in the belief that it is, fixating on certain aspects, and an ignorance of the Whole in relationship with Itself, but there can also be a fixation on the "spiritual" and the "worldly" enough to recognize the illusion of these words supposedly meaning "something other" and the disillusioning of the image/concept of life/self.
I support this 'unraveling' wholeheartedly, because it is a celebration of the falling down, dissipation, of walls that impede from truly living wholeness. Not "being wholeness", this is and needs nothing to be, but consciously living wholeness through/with these forms of life/self. Not to construct some perfection of life(that is the winding up), but attuning to perfection as it is within inherent imperfection, there is the chance to lessen the discordance and the potential of overall suffering in the world. Not necessarily to eradicate it, but to have compassion for it.
"Life is suffering" in the sense that the forms of life are in the process of living/dying, entailing inherent experiences of suffering, which is compounded in identification with being merely a form of life and in possible resistance to it's death/suffering. There are experiences of joy in this identification sense as well, but this joy is subject to disappearance, creating suffering when not experienced and in the desiring/searching for more of it. Wholeness does not fear suffering, is able to bear it, feel it, and express it without creating unnecessary suffering around/about it. For joy, peace, is here, is wholeness.
Wholeness, in the sense I am using it, is not "quantifiable", or even "qualifiable" really, and is without possibility of separation or improvement in any way. Although, all that is defined to be life, or the "whole", is seemingly separable and improvable depending on perspective. It is the belief in and fixation on these definitions that apparently "veils" and effects the quality of life. Wholeness negates the need to "quantify/qualify" life/self, is aware of appearing forms and their qualities, knows them to be not primary "reality" and empathically feels for the quality they are exhibiting/living.
So, there is awareness of the intense world situation as it appears on many levels and the ability to receive and respond to them, without the need to dramatize about it and the ability to not resist being aware of any of it.
This feels to be an answer in a relative sense, that has just unfolded now, to the initial question I introduced myself with on tribe: "What is 'awake'?" or "..are the qualities of 'awakeness'?" The habit of qualifying, or disqualifying, "who is 'awake'?" is no longer necessary, the question no longer applies. Wholeness undoubtedly 'is', and is not concerned with perception of definition. There is no need to define or defend an image of life/self, yet there is a natural response to the circumstances of "life".
Does this resonate?
With the fixation of "image-ining" life/self freed up, there is an openness to life/self that is beyond imagination. And it may appear grand, very simple, nothing special or very complex. It's not to know "how 'it' should be".
Excerpts from Ran Prieur's site:
October 24. Some great stuff today on Life After the Oil Crash
For Americans who think you can run from this shit, there's a proposed law in Australia that "would make it a crime for one parent to tell the other that their child had been detained under anti-terror laws."
[Skeye: Here is another more indepth article on the issue:
Australia: Leaked “Anti-Terrorism” Bill details draconian police-state plans
Official Bill @ Australian Capital Territory(ACT) Chief Minister Jon Stanhope:
October 24. You know that 'Tamiflu' stuff that supposedly is the only cure for the bird flu? Turns out it was developed by a company called Gilead, and the Chairman of Gilead was Donald Rumsfeld!
[ Who Owns the Rights on Tamiflu: Rumsfeld To Profit From Bird Flu Hoax www.globalresearch.ca/index.php ]
Every time I suggest the ruling powers want to kill us, people say they just want to profit from us, and this Tamiflu thing is definitely about profit. But I'll say it again: What is profit? It's the accumulation of money, which is the entitlement to someone else's labor. Profit equals increasing control. But the mechanism, money, is only symbolic. As the money economy breaks down, the ability to control us through money will break down, and the rulers (who I imagine to be cells in the demonic group mind of Control itself) will look for other ways. To the extent that they fail, to the extent that we are able to live uncontrolled, they will want to kill us, for exactly the same reason an abusive husband wants to kill his wife if she leaves him.
To be concise: Without money, the will to profit becomes the will to exterminate."
(end of excerpts)
From this perhaps it can be seen that the inclination to "stay separate" could be strong, to keep being "me" to seemingly keep safe, but this is the radical choice that is being presented: To realize the inherent freedom regardless of all circumstances, or to stay a 'prisoner' seemingly free(to be "me") within the "definitions of circumstance".
What is this 'separation' worth? What is being kept "safe"? Is the body/mind identity ever truly, 100% undeniably, "safe"? How real is safety? And what is this seeming safety worth? The destruction of "others"?
Is there true happiness in living life in defense of "me"(us) and at the expense of "other"(them)?
Thankfully, I say, no there is not.
10/3/08: I have removed the Robert Rabbin material, because some clarity on his expression came that does not resonate here.
|add a comment|
|Lovely . . .|
yes to mystivismit is refreshing to see this blend of activism and mysticism, thank you. such deep response-ability arises from really getting what one-ness means, and yet few talk about it. good way to start my day.
|I read all but the links. I can only assume that you love me as Mr Rabbin loves Bush ... based upon past disaggreements ... but who would turn down the love of God.|
good wordsthank you for them skeye.
looking back on a 20 year career as a corporate professional (computers for hospitals) i am grateful for having had that experience. it helped provide for a good life while married and raising 2 kids. but maybe even more important, it gave me insight into the culture of those over-achieving good old boys in "the club". because of my experience i know that they are inside of me, albeit an aspect that i do not usually let act out.
i remember when administering salary increases i asked an employee, "what amount of increase would it take to make you happy?". he thought for a moment and he gave me a figure. i said, "okay, let's pretend for a moment that i am going to give you not only that amount, but 50% more than that. would that make you happy?". he said, "hell yeah". then i said, "oh by the way, i am giving everyone else twice that amount, now how do you feel about it?"
Yes......generally 'happy'(as all relative things) is a matter of perspective. I remember you sharing about this progressive questioning and I give thanks for the reflection potential within it. :)