Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Inner leverage

Trying to get an idea of how form affects us is similar to trying to describe the outside of the bottle from inside the bottle.

 One of the difficulties I see with form is that I almost unavoidably assume it's a fulcrum with which I can gain leverage over my inner work... over myself... or perhaps even over heaven.

 Form looks that way; if it's inserted and applied to my awareness, I think, it will have the force to do. Yet it doesn't. Only by inserting the self into the self and becoming the self can there be any action of the self. Form can't act. The difference between form and self is vast, very nearly unattainable to ordinary understanding. Original self doesn't have any form in it; it acquires it, a complex question which we are left asking, because we live within that problem.

Those who have been following the series of recent essays about essence will perhaps already understand that this question touches on relationship to essence; inhabitation of essence. To inhabit the self with the self is to abandon form, which grows in the soil of personality.

 Form is a property of the outer circle, a necessity, but it can't really provide any force of being. It's a framework to hang things on, not a foundation I can build on. It only looks like one. 

In imagination—which is the place it exists, from a perspective of being—form is an enormous force which actually has its own presence, its own power, and can dictate how things should be. I imagine that if I align myself with it, it can do work for me; yet form can't actually initiate anything, it can't begin anything for me. It doesn't unlock any inner doors; what it unlocks is my imagination about inner doors. Only the self facing the self can face the door and open it.

To go within and see directly that it's this organic relationship of self to self; to touch on the sensation of the self knowing the self, before the form and even without the form; this is the question.

It's not as though there is no form; there is. But that in and of itself has to become a question. I am completely identified with form. So much so that I don't even see it is an identification. Every iota of my understanding crystallizes around this kernel; and assigning it power actually takes me away from my responsibility to myself, to my Being, and to others.

In minding the form, never mind the form; what am I?

I respectfully hope you will take good care.


  1. I can understand your struggle to see yourself as you actually are. That is one very important reason to work with sensation, but we are also meant as men to create a soul, or inner bodies. These begin in the imagination: the IMAGE maker in us.
    We begin with a false self which takes the shape of an imaginary wonderful and perfect us. Clearly this is simply a curtain behind which is the subconscious reality which we dare not see.
    But how are we to birth something real in us if we do not demolish this false image and replace it with something substantial?
    So we must see our imagination first for what it has become -- a delusion, ands to really see this requires the pain and suffering of what we really are as we exist in the world.
    But after that, what?

    I contend that we MUST utilize the image-ination to create shape in our emotional body and our mental body (I use body rather than center to give a sense of the real work, once the genie is out of the bottle)

    If we REALLY saw our emotional body as it is we would see a monster, perhaps with a giant penis or vulva, and scads of wealth concepts that are nothing but "merge", as our teacher would state, and glued on to us all sort of objects that we think we "own".

    All of this news to be brought into a bright enough light to terrify us into creating a more mature inner body, both of emotion and or mental constructs.

    It is only in this way that we may be able to call ourselves men fully human who have worked on ourselves with indomitable and indefatigable perseverance. Thinking that we as Self have no form is in my way of working a deadly cul-de-sac into which I have fallen before. It is a different tradition altogether, and not one with good results, because it fails to take into account the FACT of RELATIONSHIP. It is a work alone leading to a zero sum. Feels good, because non-existence feels better than existence, but we are not allowed off the merry-go-round until the last farthing has been paid.

  2. I think you're leading us into territory you and I could discuss profitably at great length over the phone, Richard, but I'm not sure we can tackle it here.

    Let's just say that I feel your comments certainly have merit and are on the mark, when taken from a certain point of view.



Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.