Tuesday, 16 January 2007

Existence, Sex, Love - conclusion?

I will see existence just as it is,
And through this I will Be.
And with books and systems all behind,
I'll live a life that is me.

That was the slogan that began all this in March 1997. The call to myself to emerge from the Text and experience reality without narrative. Unfortunately my great aspirations ended in sensual love, and then lust and then negativity and Death.

But, one end is another beginning, turn from a door closing and see another opening.

My lab partner made me realise something yesterday: there are simply not the girls around (anymore) who understand spirituality. As a French house mate once said: no matter what a girl says or does, what she deeply wants is the best orgasm. That is what we call "making love". But that isn't Love - its a drug experience, one that I have been looking toward believing that it was the way to true fulfillment and happiness: infact nearly every narrative from Western Music to Eastern film says the same thing - it is a totally dominant and all pervading, almost authoritarian, imperative to us.

It causes great confusion to find that the girl you loves only wants a profound orgasm, when all you want is spiritual unity. But, I realise the mistake now - I have definitely been fishing in completely the wrong pool of water.

Looking into the pool that was "my muse" for the diamond of eternal happiness I notice a reflection that was looking at me, and while the reflection looked like me and I felt affinity with this creature, I have realised that it is not me and remains forever in the frame of that watery grave. Were I and my reflection to ever meet and become one, then there would be hope for man and woman and for love; but alas the future of my reflection when I walk away is to dissipate, cos for eternity we are doomed to be separate.

You see take a man and woman in naked sexual loving embrace: the reason for the embrace is that the man finds the woman attractive in her femaleness, and the woman finds the man attractive in his maleness. Her mind is full of him, and his is full of her. How then can these two minds ever be unified? For this either he would have to sympathise her attraction in him, and she his in her; or they would have to see beyond the difference of their sexuality and unify in a world beyond the differences of sexuality. In either case the experience of sexual-need in "another" is replaced by self-satisfaction as we are either enabled to take over our partners attraction in ourself, or to lose that attraction.

It is Yin-Yang. When we are outside the whole we can see the interrelatedness of the parts, side by side, yet together, and within each lies the other as lovers looking eye to eye. But if we are either of the parts then all we can see is the other, we miss the point and seeking to unify in some simple way while remaining at the perspective of one of the parts is The Myth. We can only unify when we step to the higher level and see ourselves in the same light as our lover: equals side by side. And that means that we need to undo our sexual attraction which makes them the object and the partner of ourselves - that is the inequality that worldly sexual partnerships depend upon.

So the project of sensual sexual love with "my muse" has ended. I know this because these days I am rid of the sexual frustrations and confusions surrounding the "failure" of that aspect of the relationship and of myself. "My muse" leaves a very peaceful and pure longing for a very close friend, a spiritual friend, a person whose identity within me was forged in the flames of lower desires, but who now remains as a diamond in my heart. There is no need anymore, I have lost nothing; in death she is as beautiful and wonderful as she was in life. Hopefully this might be the end of this rather selfish epitaph, which says more of me than of her, but for anyone who knew her, her name was Reena Mandalia, God bless her.

Tuesday, 9 January 2007

The root of suffering

On the other hand I have become reinvogorated with the other approach...

I promised myself I would read the Phaedo after the recent events. Scanning the begining yesterday I was interested to see Socrates' opening contemplation: after being released from his chains and feeling the life coming back into his leg, he observes how closely pain and pleasure are associated - where there is one the other is sure to follow. It is as if the creature has two heads.

Well there we are, what more do I need. You see what the last 9 years have done is virtually obliterate the childhood hope that I had that bliss abiding was possible in this world. After reading too many fairy tales and their ilk, one is left with this dream of eternal happiness and invariabley that through romantic love - even while ones intellectual self knows perfectly better. I had my intellectual self fooled by the depth and complexity of that romance I feel.

If I do finally kill the dream and accept that where there is pleasure their is pain, and without pain there cannot be pleasure then I experience now simply the mirror of the pleasures I experienced 9 years ago. The beast whether it be pain or pleasure be the same. That beast ofcourse is desire. It brings us both pain and pleasure, and the stronger the desire the greater the two. I knew as the roller-coaster set off 9 years ago that I probably could not handle what came next. The question has been do I get stronger the face the forces of such high energy travel, or do I see the peace of not riding at all. Unsure as yet...

What exactly was Buddha teaching? They call him the desireless one: one might think that he attained his peaceful abiding by killing the serpent with two heads so that he had neither pleasures nor pains. His two final tests as the hands of Mara - the demoness of illusion - were her demons and daughters; repulsion and attraction: which he tackled with compassion and non-attachment. On the other hand you too often find the belief that his path simply ends suffering and leaves you pleasure.

Getting it together with the ex physically yesterday, and testing that theory of giving; it was good but it was not so good as to sell my soul over this. Temptations may be great but the boy aint becoming a man for any temporary desire or woman. It will be for himself and for immutable truth and eternity alone. Afterall when I am dead what use will all these petty desires have been, and my intellect will no longer be pursuaded that there is immortality in all this.

Love is a much harder, stronger, more patient, giving, peaceful and wiser thing than the old romantic would have wanted. There is no abandoning to the bliss here, that is only the soft seductive call of Mara.

The man who gathers flowers (of sensual pleasure), whose mind is distracted, and who is insatiate in desires, the Destroyer brings under his sway. [48]

As a bee without harming the flower, its colours or scent, flies away, collecting only the honey, even so should the sage wander in the village. [49]
Dhammapada

However reading this: doesn't it say that pleasures are not to be denied. It is only that one must not seek to take the pleasures with oneself. But the question is, as has always been for me, is not the act of enjoying also the act of wanting? Can I enjoy that which I do not want? And if I want it, and do not get it then is it not suffering?

I can only understand this to mean that there are two types of pleasure. There are those pleasures we may attain my feeding a desire; the other head of the demon being pain. There are those pleasures which arise within the mind, which have no object and which are gained not through the external "thing", but rather through the letting go of the thing. I have not read this, it is unclear.

The first move is ascetism, of which I am well happy with. But its movement away from the other world of sensory excitement means that I learn nothing of that other world, and invariably I am drawn back to explore. Buddha at least was finished with the sensory before his ascetism. I am neither satisfied, nor unsatisfied with either yet: though maybe getting tired of the sensory world.

If the boy becomes a man then, it is only to gain full retirement from that world, after which the other way follows surely, and after that the middle and full appreciation of the two heads of Mara.

Sunday, 7 January 2007

To Be or Not to Be/The Boy becomes a Man

Altho Hamlets speech is supposed to be his contemplation of suicide I always saw more relevance of life in it.

At each point in life don't we ask the same question? To be a good person or not. To be a happy person or not. To be a doctor or not. To be a lover or not. To be a monk or not etc etc.

For when we chose not to do something do we kill that future self?

And what do we replace it with? Not another self, but with the NULL self and "we lose the name of action".

The question is then what lies in that "sleep of death", the abiding of that self which has turned against itself.

This morning I realise that if we do not attain that which we have chosen then we experience suffering. I have not attained that which I chose as deeply as my heart is deep. I would not have attained it because attain it or not, Death would have stolen it in only 9 years anyway.

But on that cold December afternoon as the sun was setting on Sloane Square, if I had not looked into her eyes and chosen her then I would not be mourning the death of a self at all. Had she worked in another store, turned a different corner, had I made my yeses at the other girls I worked with, this would never have happened. I heart made my bed but I didn't sleep in it and my heart has only itself to blame.

If I had chosen Death instead, and denied that temptation to fulfill my hearts deepest desire as I had every day until that moment when I was already 26, then I might now be 35 and still free from this pain.

The question to Be or Not to Be I am still contemplating as I did that day, but now I fear it is too late. I have chosen to Be, to accept mortal, finite reality as my bedrock and for that i will know suffering like the mermaid who desires to walk with morals: every step on broken glass. Can ther be a turning back to innocence, to a time when I was free, immortal, unafraid of the demon Death?

I do not know whether it is too late. Like a horse fighting its teather I am exhausted of this struggle to free myself of fetters. The moth in a room with a candle unable to escape the lure of that deadly flame. I do not even have the certainty that NULL was the way. Has the boy unavoidably become a Man?

Saturday, 6 January 2007

Submission & Domination

Hegel is a god of philosophy as far as I'm concerned because of his dialectical process and because of his arguments regarding Master & Slave. It goes something like this:

At the outset when people meet there is the chance of equality. This is not simple because the consciousness has two sides - the subject and the object. Each person will view the "other" person as an object in the world.

In our own mind we are a powerful subject with the power to objectify anything. It might follow reasonably that the "other" person has a subjectivity too.

There is a problem in doing this however because if we recognise that the other person has a valid subjectivity then we are at the same time giving them the power to objectify us.

Being objectified strips us of our subjectivity and we may as well be a stone. It is death. The fear of being objectified (zoned/blanked) means that we tend to shy from acknowledging people's subjectivity and see them preferably as an object, as a stone. That is the root of the psycho/sociopaths problem.

One progressive solution to this problem is the sub/dom, Master/Slave, King/subject relationship. Here the Master has absolute power and objectifies all others. The others can't accept their objectivity (which would be death) instead they accept slavery because they can at least experience what a free subjectivity is by being pushed around. What Hegel argues is that the King is a static consciousness because he has the illusion of freedom already, while the slaves are a dynamic consciousness desiring the freedom of their king and so developing. Eventually revolution rips through the situation as the slaves over throw the king and liberate themselves. They do not however take up thrones themselves because each liberated slave understands that the king was not really free, only free because they had accepted slavery. No-one becomes a king, no-one becomes a slave and people see each other equally. That is the emergence of spirit in Hegel. The "I that is We and the We that is I".

Now years ago this was the narrative I used regarding my slavery to my muse. I suddenly remember this and need to ponder where I am in this dialectic now. Its late time to sleep... sweet dreams

My Muse is me?

I am finding more and more out now that I am in communication and am receiving alternative narratives. My muse had many friends, altho i always remember her saying that I was her best. I also realise that maybe she did make a complete decision to pidgeon hole me as a friend rather than lover, because her loves tended to be rather shallow affairs from what I could tell.

It brings me closer to this realisation. Maybe she was not the person I thought she was. In which case the emmense beauty that i felt in her presence, and the emmense respect I had for her, and the emmense love I had for her were actually all created by me!

This means that the power of these experiences is not testament to her at all, but rather to the potential in my own mind. It is true that for whatever reason she was the key carrier to that special door in my heart I had been unable to open before. But now that it was opened do I need her anymore anyway? It was the question of how to open that door which is what had kept me searching as a child for this girl.

The question I have been puzzling all day and just now over dinner with my ex is: can the mind really be self-sufficient like the monks say?

If I have learned anything during this process it is that desires go REALLY deep. You can't just choose to turn them off, and you can't just practice them away. Desires ARE karmas and if you have them then you are in the cycle of rebirths and must face the joy/pain that comes.

Freedom is not the right to have what you want, because you are still governed and enslaved by your wants. Next time I want a girl I'm back into slavery. True freedom would be the freedom to ignore a want when it arises. This seems to be the opposite of mundane spiritual practise which tells you that if you do good things then you can get what you want. Isn't it better not to want things in the first place! Thank God I don't want a £10 million yacht at the moment!!! imagine the hastle and slavery involved in finding that sort of money for starters.

I would say of my muse and her sister now that they are simply the nicest and best people I have ever met. If I cannot be friends with them because of death or whatever obstacles then I feel it is because I have not attained the level of goodness. I still have a very great deal of purification to undergo to rid myself of negative impulses, negative attitudes and general mental weight, sluggishness and baggage.


I have also made a vow that in future I am going to only give in relationships, and expect nothing in return. If my partner does not give me what i want (sexually or otherwise) then that is just tough. If it gets too bad I'll move on. This is what I did with my muse, but it is only today when I fully understand what i was doing. I feel that the freedom that comes from expecting and demanding nothing of a partner is the greatest thing you can give, next to yourself obviously.

I also realise that we must be courageous enough to dare to think that we are of interest and value to other people. i said this before that when we desire people we often forget to see our own value. Rather than seeking other peoples value I am going to concentrate on my own value so that I can give this to others. Again this was my game plan in the past, but it got confused because in this "push the button" (Sugababes) world it seems that girls require the guy to make the first move, which I always confused within myself with taking. I do not want to take, but in future I will push the button so that i can give.

Interestingly this is all true to my original game plan as a child. Total respect for the other through sacrifice of ones own wants in favour of total giving. It is almost like monastic renunciation except it plays out like ordinary living. I wonder if this really works. Next stop is to try it ;-) !

p.s. Ex-girlfriend and I have finally come to an excellent resolution too! She accepts that i do not want the relationship, and she sees that not as rejection and devaluing of her, but simply my freedom to chose. It is my freedom to chose which has been totally rejected in this relationship for 2 years which has left me a bit like a caged animal and really fossilised in side. When she gave me the choice whether I wanted the relationship today I could feel the blood flowing back into my core, just the hint of a breeze on my soul as it came to life. The answer was no, but she understood. Now that is a truely amazing event. I can say I love her now! as a friend (now is this a hall of mirrors I am walking through!!??)

You can only have that which you are able to let go of.

or in Bono's words (U2) - if you hold onto something so tight, you already lost it.

James Bond & Super-heroes

I disagree with the direction of the latest bond (Casino Royal). Traditional Bond fits the bill of the super hero.

Basically film Bond (different from book Bond) is a boy's fantasy world. The main sexual figure is Miss Moneypenny who despite having the closest relationship with Bond is also off limits. This fits the role of a boys mother. When Bond is playing in the back garden (the World) we know he is never in any real trouble and no matter where he is, he can usually rely upon a meet up with Q (a deus ex machina - or at least his gadgets). Q is either his father, or an Uncle figure. Q treats Bond like the schoolboy he is. If Q is not his father, then his father is the serious bloke Bond has to report back to in Whitehall - i.e. Miss Moneypenny's boss (which fits family stereotypes well too). The world of Bond is very small - just his immediate family - , and it all revolves around him.

Now this would be boring for a school boy so he needs an adventure and an adversary to pit his wits against. We know that Bond is never going to fail. His adversary is good enough to make Bond look great when he defeats him, but not so good that Bond looses. Its a bit uncanny, almost as though the adversary is an imaginary creation of Bond as he plays with his toys in the back garden.

Bond needs to create this adversary in order to show how good he is. This dialectic between the Good Guy and the Bad Guy is universal. The Good Guy needs the Bad Guy in order to look good, indeed he actually creates the Bad Guy in his struggle to be Good. Its great in films, its a nightmare when politicians start playing these games for real!

On the other hand the Bad Guy is always this mad sociopath whose only real reason for existence is killing Bond. No-one else is smart enough to even bother with. When the crunch comes however the Bad-Guy can't kill Bond though, because without Bond his fun is gone, and more importantly Bond created him!

Bond appeals to the immature male Ego perfectly - he's a Man's-Boy playing in the security of our parents home, dreaming of saving the world and getting the girl.

Typical of all Super-Heros however were he ever to get the girl in reality it would blow everything apart because he would have to acknowledge another person outside his narcisistic world. Unlike Miss Moneypenny he can't reply upon this other person because they might reject him and leave. In opening up to another consciousness the Boy-Ego no longer has the universal power it did within the play ground of its own mind and so the girl would bring about a relativising of the Boy and his realisation that he is just another ordinary individual. Thus when Super-heros fall in love they lose their special powers.

When this happens Bond would become useless to the sociopathic Bad-Guy who would lose all reason for existence himself. The whole fantasy world would disintegrate, and the games in the play ground would end.

In Casion Royal however Bond is not a true hero. His narcisism is replaced by the logic that he can't trust other people, he becomes a cold and heartless individual - a victim of the world - far removed from the cheeky, playful boy in the earlier bonds where we can indulge in a revisit of our own fun childhoods.

On the other hand it is a very stylish film, and a cinematic breath of fresh air ventilating away the stuffy fast action, fast edited, cgi rubbish in Hollywood.

Regarding my own journey at the moment, I wonder if I have not been stuck in my own Super-hero fantasy world for the last 9 years - refusing to grow up. I may be 35, but I would confess to still being a boy at heart. The question for me is, do I grow up? and if so do I "get the girl" in future (which means an awful lot of other bits of growing up)? and does growing up mean seeking satisfaction from external sources?

In Buddhism/Hinduism as I understand it, everything that we experience is created by our own deep minds. And we understand that the world and our minds are the same. So, we do not need anything from the world (because that is really our mind) before we are satisfied.

Now what is the difference between that and Super-hero narcisism? It is interesting to me that being a monk could look very much like remaining a boy!

Thursday, 4 January 2007

Why my focus on morality?

Blimey now that I am being chased by a collapsing relationship into the arms of my computer, I've got time to write down everything!!

Here is the biggest narrative of my life - the struggle with evil. Some is quite ugly, but it's what has happened in my life so its in the blog on life.

Aged around 8 I was reminded in horror of the worst thing I ever did. In the summer of 1977, when I was six, my preprep group was joined for an afternoon each week by a preschool group. I remember this dark haired, doe eyed girl that became the object of my desire. She used to wear a strap dress and I wanted to take it off. Aged 6 my weak mind was consumed. I asked her if she would, she said no, so I chased her. She was screaming and crying and got to the teacher. I remember having no care for her at all, I was like an animal.

Aged 8 I was horrified to think i could have been so utterly uncaring. I may as well have killed her for how bad I felt. It was a dagger in my heart, an end to my innocence and the loss of the belief that i was good. I racked my memory to check I had not done other bad things. I remembered doing the same thing to her the week after. I got my friends to help in a game to catch her. When they caught her they asked what to do, I said take her dress off, some complained that it was wrong and told teacher and I was told to play in another part of the playground away from the object of desire. There were other events that troubled me. I once pushed someone in a race and they got cut on glass - not deliberate, but it all mounted together to an awareness that I needed to guard this wild creature to make sure it didn't do bad things. That guilt was always with me and guided me to be a better person.

As a teenager I still mourned the harm I had done. I wondered if she might have been psychologically effected by the events, that those few summer days of madness may have changed her whole life. It was a guilt too hard to bear. I vowed never to hurt another person in the whole of my life.

That vow did me well except for fights with my parents. I even hit my mother and father a few times. It was enough however to purify me and in 1983 after confirmation and praying every night I attained a trance by accident while doing some homework. That experience began my consciousness properly, I saw the infinite space of the mind, it was the most beautiful experience ever. I ran down stairs to tell my father and he must have thought i was mad. That he knew nothing about it I suppose is why i forgot about it until I came upon it by accident in Buddhism.
I had been told by friends at school that what i was talking about in general in life was like Buddhism, but it took 10 years to check it up.

Then in 1987 the next terrible thing happened. I had not had a wank for a week on holiday, and while fantasising freely in the car on the way home I imagined a coven meeting in the forest to summon the devil and in the ecstatic orgy a man cut off a girls head and started to screw it from the neck into the wind pipe!

My mind stepped in the moment it knew what was happening and froze everything. How the hell do you deal with that! where did it come from? why did I think that? did I enjoy that?

A question was raised in my mind. Did I enjoy it as a sadistic act? It was a horrible question because it was suggesting that causing suffering could be a goal of desires. That 6 year old beast of a child could have enjoyed inflicting pain.

I remembered again another event. A friend showed me how easy it was to trip up his baby cousin. I was gripped by a sadistic pleasure in tripping him and making him cry. We only did it once, but remembering that was enough to prove that inflicting pain can be pleasurable in the free unguarded mind.

My own self was now a demon to be guarded. I was deeply guiltly, apologetic and pained by the huge responsibility I had to keep this inner self in chains and guarded from further cruel and evil thoughts and behaviour. I began my moralistic thinking to try and see if it was possible to work out what caused these violations of human decency in my mind, in a bid to cut them off and free my mind from its endless duty.

The 3rd and final trip came at college in 1991. I was continuously troubled by the nagging knowledge that there were unwholesome elements in my mind. I was always fearing that they might spring forward and give me that intolerable sadistic pleasure again. I also began to wonder whether the grotesque things you see in the news sometimes and in films of people killing and abusing people for kicks and pleasure were motivated by the same demons I had. I began to wonder whether I was destined to become one of these people - a psycho as I feared it.

One night while talking to a friend he mentioned that it was possible to do psychological tests to determine whether people were psychos. I was stoned and that was enough to do something to my brain. If an external person could determine independently of my own freewill whether I was a psycho, and presumably whether i was going to offend, then I had "no will" against my destiny. If I was a psycho there was nothing I could do about it, and since I knew I had some elements within me that could be exactly that. I felt my worst possible nightmare was coming true. (The disempowering nature of such testing and legislation is why I am very opposed to this branch of psychology)

That night I slipped into an horrible obsessive compulsive state of mind where I literally believed that i was about to get out of bed go down stairs, get a knife and do a psycho job on the Chinese guy who lived next door.

For anyone reading this who knows this state of mind - rest assured that the part of the brain that is experiencing OCD is completely different from the part that actually does things. You may believe you are about to do something but actually you must develop faith that it won't happen.

I didn't know this. It was terrifying. I eventually got to sleep but my brain was changed. I lived in the belief that i was a psycho from there on, on the verge of doing horrible things, and only my own self control stood between me and the pit.

Typically I tackled it rationally trying to take it all apart to understand where all this came from. I can explain some results here...

Consciousness while being a subject usually views other things as objects. That is the cause of all the problems in sin. Being sinless in Indian thought is undoing that dualism. In desire the subject seeks to consume the object. The more objectified (i.e. over there) the object is, the more desirable it is. In porn you may find this. The highest degree of objectification is what they call alterity. It is complete dualism between subject and object, where the subject divorces all responsibility for the object. It is the explanation for the treatment of Jews in the holocaust. In a sadistic experience this is what is happening, the Ego(subject, self) is extremely objectifying the object. The pleasure arises because the act of extreme objectification, is a tangible show of strength and solid existence for the now supersized subject. It revels in the glory of its conquering, while the poor object experiences utter destruction and rejection - and probably wondering why it was chosen for object in the first place! That is the chink in the Ego's armour - it forgot that it could only do this because it chose the object in the first place! an unfair battle, and meaningless victory. But the deluded self is a sucker for its own self flattery and justification. So there is lack of power within my mind which it tried to compensate for in sadistic movements.

Trouble is, OCD is another ball game and requires much bigger thinking than plain phenomenology. Don't do drugs if you have any mental weakness is the lesson here - or do drugs and find out if you have if you want! Omega-3 oils have made a hugely good impact, combined with positive thinking and faith that the mechanism of OCD is harmless. Falling in love also gets rid of OCD because the two work the same way. Obsession about an individual - sound familiar ;-) I became fish-vegetarian in 2000 at the same time as making the break from my muse, and that is where the OCD took over completely.

I would say I'm almost over all this now. It was Indian thought which saved me. The belief that the true-self is good. It is not the Freudian model of Id seeking to over-throw the influence of the Super-Ego on the Ego. Quite how I got stuck in that model as a teenager unawares of Freud is a mystery, or an illustration of the power of shared cultural narratives.

It is not that we don't have a lifetime of struggling against little evil impulses, but that the light at the end of the tunnel is a pure good self - rather than the hopeless pessimism of being a Damion in the Omen who is destined to evil. The difference between a saint and a sinner is that the saint never gives up trying. But don't try too hard because as Buddha points out a string snaps if tighted too much, and wont play if not tighted enough.

Freed from the idea that we can be "just evil" and that with effort we can rid ourselves of imperfections turned my thinking around. Instead of worrying and guarding myself, I opened myself up and faced the battle in the open. Were a negative impulse to occur I would close down, then when it had passed try and replace that negativity with a positive response. That way the mind is trained to experience positive instead of negative. That way we positively believe the mind gets closer to its true nature of positive goodness.

So this mind has been through some bad times and followed completely the wrong path many times, but it was worth it to - as Simon Le Bon once advised - "stay good" which is the only way to freedom, liberation and happiness.

US displaying its Imperialist credentials... yet again

Wanted to know the pattern of UN votes over Venezuela and then got into seeing if ChatGPT could see the obvious pattern of Imperialism here....