I used to think there was a more steady version of me.
I used to long for less ups and downs, less anxiety, less rehashing of the past and trying to predict the future.
I realised that rehashing of the past and attempting to predict the future was all in an attempt to keep me safe.
From what?
I thought it was from what other people think of me, but actually, when I looked deeper it was from what I thought of me; from what I might think of me.
It was exhausting and ineffectual. I never became more steady or less anxious, or more perfect at doing the job of being me.
In fact, I eventually became ill.
I used to think there was a more steady version of me.
And I wasn't wrong. There is. And of you.
A more entire, complete version of you and I than you or I could ever imagine.
---
The biggest challenge we face is realising that what we think is us, isn't us at all. It's a tiny tiny piece of an infinitely massive completeness. And even that is a red herring.
The reason it's a red herring is that there is no end or beginning to who you are, so to say you're a tiny tiny piece of an infinitely massive completeness is contradictory and misleading.
----
There's no end or beginning to who you are thing might sound fanciful and/ or confusing. However, take a look at your experience and you may see something surprising. (And by the way, right now, I'm not talking about no end and beginning to Kate, well I am, but let's forget about Kate for a minute.)
When you look around you probably think that there's you, and then there's stuff - mugs, children, husband, walls, a door. And there are, but when you think about your experience of those things: none of them has ever been experienced by you without you. Or in other words, have you ever had an experience of any of those things without you being in the equation? Could you know any of those things independent from you? Could you experience any of those things without you being involved? The answer of course, is no. Experience of those things, knowing of those things, requires you.
Yes, I can think about my son at school right now, but that experience of him doesn't exist without me. He doesn't exist for me without me. (And let's not get into the yes buts: ‘Does he exist for other people without me?’ The only way I'll ever get an answer about that is with me in the equation experiencing asking the question to, for example, my mum, so again, my experience of him is via my experience of her experience of him….)
There's no getting away from the fact that I can't experience anything without me there.
No distance between me and everything I experience?
Then who I am IS experience; the space in which experience arises, the space in which it is known. All of it. None of it.
I used to long for less ups and downs, less anxiety, less rehashing of the past and trying to predict the future.
I realised that rehashing of the past and attempting to predict the future was all in an attempt to keep me safe.
From what?
I thought it was from what other people think of me, but actually, when I looked deeper it was from what I thought of me; from what I might think of me.
It was exhausting and ineffectual. I never became more steady or less anxious, or more perfect at doing the job of being me.
In fact, I eventually became ill.
I used to think there was a more steady version of me.
And I wasn't wrong. There is. And of you.
A more entire, complete version of you and I than you or I could ever imagine.
---
The biggest challenge we face is realising that what we think is us, isn't us at all. It's a tiny tiny piece of an infinitely massive completeness. And even that is a red herring.
The reason it's a red herring is that there is no end or beginning to who you are, so to say you're a tiny tiny piece of an infinitely massive completeness is contradictory and misleading.
----
There's no end or beginning to who you are thing might sound fanciful and/ or confusing. However, take a look at your experience and you may see something surprising. (And by the way, right now, I'm not talking about no end and beginning to Kate, well I am, but let's forget about Kate for a minute.)
When you look around you probably think that there's you, and then there's stuff - mugs, children, husband, walls, a door. And there are, but when you think about your experience of those things: none of them has ever been experienced by you without you. Or in other words, have you ever had an experience of any of those things without you being in the equation? Could you know any of those things independent from you? Could you experience any of those things without you being involved? The answer of course, is no. Experience of those things, knowing of those things, requires you.
Yes, I can think about my son at school right now, but that experience of him doesn't exist without me. He doesn't exist for me without me. (And let's not get into the yes buts: ‘Does he exist for other people without me?’ The only way I'll ever get an answer about that is with me in the equation experiencing asking the question to, for example, my mum, so again, my experience of him is via my experience of her experience of him….)
There's no getting away from the fact that I can't experience anything without me there.
No distance between me and everything I experience?
Then who I am IS experience; the space in which experience arises, the space in which it is known. All of it. None of it.
RSS Feed