You Can't Grasp a River

A stream of river can't be grasped; 
once you try, it is no longer stream.

And so is Life.

...



When one drinks water,
he / she decides to drink it, then moves,
and feels the sensation of water going down
the throat.


We normally think of these actions and happenings
as a sequence - that the second comes after 
the first, and the third after the second - that each of
them can be fixated as something that "really" happened
at one point in time and space.




Is it true?


...



When you're feeling the sensation of the water
going down the throat, where is that "decision" that 
was made?  How can you tell that it existed?

Your memory?  Where else?


Are memories real?
Where are they?
Can you grasp them?




No mater how much you want to
preserve an experience, and preciously arrange 
them in order, it is going to be, at best, 
something like a set of specimen.

It's no longer IT.  No longer alive.



So, why bother chasing after a specimen butterfly
and LOOK at the real one?  :)




...



When you try to grasp the flow of water,
You'll most certainly fail.

Water stream is not a fixed entity that can be 
limited to exist in a certain point of time and space.
It is constantly renewing itself, and changing.


When we try to grasp Life, 
We'll most certainly fail,
since Life is a flow as well.


Life is HERE and NOW.
Flowing, like water.




Inquiry:

What is it that tries to intervene with
the present experience, here and now?

Can anything do it?





Some inspiring quotes:


“Water is fluid, soft, and yielding. But water will 
wear away rock, which is rigid and cannot yield. 
As a rule, whatever is fluid, soft, and yielding 
will overcome whatever is rigid and hard. This is 
another paradox: what is soft is strong.”
- Lao Tsu




“You must be shapeless, formless, like water. 
When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. 
When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. 
When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. 
Water can drip and it can crash. Become like water my friend.”
- Bruce Lee



"Firewood becomes ash, and it does not become
firewood again. Yet, do not suppose that the ash 
is future and the firewood past. You should understand 
that firewood abides in the phenomenal expression 
of firewood, which fully includes past and future and is independent of past and future. Ash abides in the
phenomenal expression of ash, which fully includes 
future and past. Just as firewood does not become 
firewood again after it is ash, you do not return to 
birth after death."

- Dogen

Being One and Being No One

One cold morning, I was standing on the road - 
It was so cold that thoughts stopped, and then, 
the world IS chill itself and there was nothing else. 


Just ONE. 


No "I."  


Freezing, but no one to freeze. 



The world became the wind, the birdsong, 
that vast and clear sky.


It was just beautiful and chaotic at the same time. 
Chaotically beautiful, so to say.



...



When there is just one thing,
there is no "you," 
and there is the miraculous movement of 
Life.  



Life is no one, but it is One. It is One, 
but it is dynamic; it shapeshifts to thoughts, emotions, visions, sounds ... a cosmic exposition 
open to everyone.



...


Next time you experience difficult emotions or 
sticky thoughts, inquire:


Are these emotions (though) separate from life?
If so, how are they separate?


LOOK, and see the fact.

Realisation and Embodiment

Once Fact is realised,
that realisation can't be undone.

... no matter how strongly one wants 
to discard it.


(Well, first of all, there is NO ONE to do the 
 discarding anyway ... )



Truth can't be acquired nor lost,
but realising truth, as a metaphor, 
is like a spell casted on you.




How come?




Once Fact is known, the gap between Fact and
illusion becomes so clear that, when a certain 
pattern of thoughts, acts (and emotions that accompany 
them) based on the belief in illusion happen, 
it makes one feel so "out of place," so to speak ...

One may notice it as a kind of
frictional force.


It is actually irritating to face that friction,
because you know illusion the cause, 
yet it certainly bothers.


Again, once you know the Fact, 
illusion is almost intolerable.



A spell of truth casted.



It seems, though, this is the only way to
live up to truth (I like to call it Fact with a capital 
F instead of truth), which is, examining and observing 
every single residue of illusion, or in other words, 
habitual patterns.

I heard someone call this work "embodiment,"
and that sounds to be a fairly suitable word.




Now, as closing questions for this post,
let me ask a couple below:

Who needs to live up to truth?  

Is there a "you" to do that?

If so, where, when, how, why do "you" exist?


Also ...

What is it that needs clearing up?

Is there a "you" to know the truth?




Have a good inquiry!

The Trap of Practice

In this blog I've always urged the readers to LOOK to see if 
there's anything like what we call "I,""self," or "me."


When one learns to LOOK, a probable trap one would be 
caught in is to make LOOKing into a kind of practice -
just like the practice to get better at playing soccer.


"I tried to LOOK today, but I was so distracted that it
 was impossible to LOOK ..."

"I couldn't keep LOOKing for long ... it just lasted few minutes ..."

"I will try harder to get better at LOOking ..."



...




Practice is good for musical instruments, sports, or martial 
arts, although it is essentially irrelevant to LOOKing, or 
self-knowledge

(or, should I call it no-self knowledge!?)





It's more like breathing. 


Does one need practice to breathe?
Does one need practice to digest food?
Does one need practice to blink?

Do you need practice to see the scenery before you?


...


Practice, in many cases, presupposes the one (person) that
gets better by doing it.  


The purpose of LOOKing, if any, is to 
bring this "person" to light and see its absence, which is the
realm of REALITY, as opposed to (if one dares to compare 
and name it) the realm of ILLUSION.


There is no "I" that practices.  
Then the word "practice" loses its meaning 
in the context of self-knowledge.




...



Next time you feel like you made LOOKing a practice,

inquire:  "Is there anyone that practices LOOKing?"  

               "If so, where does he exist?"


When you feel like you forgot to LOOK and feel frustrated about it,

Inquire:  "Is there anyone that forgets?"




The inevitable answer is NO, and this answer works 
as a reminder of the futility of practicing LOOKing.


Let LOOKing happen by itself.
That is an amazing grace that is open to everyone in the world.




Enjoy the inquiry!

Like Clouds or Raindrops ...

We don't usually see a 'subject' in clouds floating in the sky.

Clouds are just floating, they are not trying to float.  


In other words, a cloud doesn't need another subject that 
controls itself.

If a cloud thinks that the "I" inside that cloud is controlling 
itself, it might be a rather weird (or crazy) cloud!

...

What about animals?

We name a dog (say, the dog's name is Pochi), as if 
something other than that dog exists inside it.

When the dog barks, we think that Pochi is thinking about something, and that thinking resulted in its barking.

Is that true?


OK, so, the next time you see a dog,
see if it is different from clouds.
How is it different, and what makes it different from clouds, bubbles in the stream, raindrops ... or whatever?

Do they have a separate entity inside them?  LOOK.

...

Now, what about humans, including yourself?
Do you have a separate entity inside you?

Where?
When?
How?

LOOK and see if there is any.

...


Nothing in this world has another subject in itself.
If they had, we have to give two names for its 'appearance'
and its 'subject,' but that's a total nonsense.


(But that nonsense is what we are doing for ourselves, 
 btw.  So, humans are the craziest kinds of clouds ... hehe)


Water is water. Body is body.  Dog is dog.
World is world.  Thought is thought.
So on, on and on ...


What else?

Thoughts Can be Double Checked

Persistent thoughts can be annoying, and sometimes their nature
can't be revealed with a single look.

So, I'd rather double check them this way:



Say that a thought "I am inferior to others" occurs.

① First, question the THINKER of the thought - 
     Am "I" thinking this thought?

② Then, question the CONTENT of the thought - 
     Who is this "I" that is inferior to others?


If persistent, sticky thoughts occur, make it an opportunity
to dig up their root.  Inquire. 

You'll find that they don't have any roots anyway ... :)


...


One more thing to add.

Most of the times, what makes thoughts annoying is not the
thought itself, but the uncomfortable feeling that comes
when believing in a thought.  

This feeling can be persistent,
but however persistent, it can't escape the light of inquiry.


So, when such feeling is felt, don't forget to question it in the 
below manner:

"Who is feeling this feeling?  Am 'I' feeling it?"


Enjoy your inquiry!

Today's Inquiry ①

For whom is this a problem?