In the Zen tradition, the process of ordinary life, and the associative thinking it produces, are often referred to as entanglements.
Gurdjieff referred to the process of being sucked up by life and its events as identification.
Here I am, in this rat's nest of associative identifications. The lower parts are not only thoroughly invested in them, there is a firm belief on their part that the entire process of life--everything that happens to us--is all about this: the temporal, randomized, and emotionally taxing process of dealing with "reality." Of arranging everything so that we are secure, comfortable, and can assure ourselves some form of rational continuity.
Is there such a thing as rational continuity? When I ponder the implications of nonlocality, I begin to see that there is what one might call an irrational simultaneity to the universe, rather than the rational continuity my temporalized and localized convictions produce.
And indeed, poised between intersecting energies in the body-- the higher and lower forces which meet here in this place called, for lack of a better word, consciousness--there seems to be a contradiction that can't be resolved without the abandonment of logical assumptions.
The acceptance of the nonlocality of the universe is just such an abandonment. To rationally accept the irrational-- is that possible? And is there a way to accept this with parts other than the intelligence of the intellect?
The suggestion is that within this moment, I am immediately and irrevocably linked to, and a fully realized part of, an instantaneous process of Being which permeates the entire universe.
This conceptualization is strikingly close to the Buddhist world view. It is equally in step, I believe, with what Gurdjieff said about the nature of things.
The idea raises questions about all of our assumptions, and directs me back to the header for this blog, which has been there since its inception:
"There is no "I", there is only truth. The way to the Truth is through the heart.
The jumbled twigs of our associations produce entanglements that obstruct a clear view of this question.
The sweet nectar that can feed us with the possibility of a nonrational acceptance of the nonrational is too overpowering to be swallowed in gulps. We must open our parts to it slowly, sip gently and intimately, in trembling anticipation of an opening far too profound for this ordinary self to bear.
And that, once again, is about being willing to suffer by standing naked in front of what we are, and what we lack. Only that willingness opens the blossoms that the nectar flows within.
may our hearts be open, and our prayers be heard.