Showing posts with label be here now. Show all posts
Showing posts with label be here now. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 28, 2026

How shall "I" become Nobody?


Did Zen folk, being Taoists, get it?
  • Avenged Sevenfold "Nobody" (official video)
  • I went to a Buddhist retreat needing something to happen; nothing happened.
  • My friend, a regular American woman into yoga, also went but not expecting anything, hoping for anything, "needing" anything; something happened.
  • I asked, "How?! How is this happening? What did you do differently?"
  • She claims she didn't "do" anything. She just sat. She just attended to the present moment with bare awareness, almost like that R.E.M. song, "Stand in the Place Where You Are." She didn't say that. She mentioned thinking about the song "Just Breathe" for inspiration sometimes.
  • I asked, "You're thinking about music?"
  • She answered, "No, but intrusive thoughts come and go. Sometimes by habit I engage them before mindfully-remembering and then letting them go, letting them cross like clouds in a vast open sky." And she mentioned visualizing the in-and-out breath as steam in a steam room or a small whirligig (windspinner) at her nose turning as the breath moved.
  • I asked, "You spend your time visualizing?"
  • She answered, "No, but sometimes to focus, I imagine some indicator of the breath just to help get focused."
  • I asked, "How do you stay energized and focused for so many hours of the retreat schedule day?"
  • She surprised by answering that she used a little peppermint under her nose.
  • I asked, "You spend your time huffing essential oils?"
  • She answered, "No but it's a nice pick me up in the morning, and it's good to feel a chill on the spot above the lip where I place my calm attention."
  • I started to see the pattern. Everything I asked and conceived was about getting and gaining.
  • And everything she answered was about letting go, relaxing, and staying aware without "thinking" (i.e., ruminating, perseverating, proliferating, drifting away on a tide of discursive thinking).
  • A Buddhist retreat, like a Christian church service, is not somewhere to go to gain. It is a place to go to lay down the burden and let go a little, release, share, give, abandon, listen, allow with radical acceptance of what is. Imagine only ever going to church (mass, temple, the sabbath ritual) with a laundry list of wishes for the God. How well was that ever going to work? But a person with a purer heart goes just to receive the Word or the Spirit or advice embedded in the sermon to give more donations to the church or whatever nonsense most sermons are on nowadays. Surely that purer person would get more out of the experience than the person with the list treating the God of that church like a restaurant, ATM, or the lap of Saint Santa Claus (Nicholas).
  • So let us follow in the example of the woman who "succeeded" in getting what everybody else on that retreat was after. About three other women got it, too, including Buddhist meditation teachers Shaila Catherine (Wisdom Wide and Deep: Jhana and Insight) and Dr. Nikki (The Persian Buddhist: Dr. Nikki).
  • Oddly, strangely (coincidentally?), these three women are all from California, but the long retreat was on the east coast at IMS with a rare enlightened master. I do not now recall if there was a male among the very small group of retreatants/meditators who "succeeded" in getting somewhere very deep with their meditation. But it was impossible to overlook the fact that even if there were, it was still 75% women who succeeded. So I asked her about this.
  • She answered, "I did notice, and I asked the Teacher, and he explained, 'It's easier for women.'"
  • I asked, "Why in the world would it be easier for women? Surely, they have it harder than men in this world, which after all we are told is 'a man's world.'"
  • She agreed, and she mentioned that she asked him the same question, and the great master, a successful scholar-practitioner not teaching only from theory but having a great deal of direct practical personal experience with the historical Buddha's Path, answered. He explained that it is how women are (by nature at this time) and how they are treated now (by injustice). Their way, as anyone can see in terms of American sex-role stereotyping and gender asymmetries (that they are treated less than, overlooked, underestimated, ignored, disregarded, and all that) actually gives them an advantage in meditation and spiritual progress.
  • I said, "Why? Why would that be?"
  • She answered, as it came right back around to slap me in the face and punch me in the gut, that it is because women, generally, are NOT striving, struggling, needing, demanding, insisting, interfering, pushing, muscling, and all the "wrong" (disadvantageous, self-defeating, dysfunctional) things we men generally do.
  • I asked, "Well, isn't everyone there -- having paid and taken time off work and putting in all those hours of silence, getting up early, eating only in the morning, detoxing from technology, giving up their cell phones, social media, and email accounts -- doing EXACTLY that?!
  • She answered, "Yes, except for the four of us, for some reason. It's not like we knew each other or knew what the others were doing. We were each just minding our business, not socializing, not looking around, not taking walks, not arguing, not demanding, not all of that stuff that everyone else [being American] were in the habit of doing."
  • I said, "Oh, I see! It's exactly all that grasping, needing, struggling, striving, and kicking @$$ that is getting in everyone's (well nearly everyone's) way!
  • She answered, "It would seem so."
  • Then I realized I was pushing her for these answers, and she was kind enough, because we had known each other for so long and been such friends, and because I encouraged her and made sure she got to this retreat, that she tolerated this interrogation of sorts. I was startled by what she was saying, and she was saying precious little unless I pushed. I realized anyone with common sense and common decency would never push like this or ask pointed questions. But this is how I pressed that very teacher to answered and explain things, which he did as he kindly inquired about my practice and how I was doing and why I was so worried or interested in what anybody else was doing. (I didn't have enough sense to trust in him that when I was ready, I would learn all these things directly and not need to be so bullheaded in asking). But because I had not made progress, I'd been left to wonder what I was doing wrong, aside from everything. It was only my luck, my precious good karma, that I had the good fortune of knowing more than one person who had done it right (or was currently doing it "right" in the sense of the eight path factors of "right mindfulness, right effort, and so on) that I could see by comparison where I veered off. I already knew about my veering off. What I needed to know, for myself and Wisdom Quarterly readers was, What's the right road, the right path, the right practice? Now I was getting a dose of it. I had only been "a little" off but that little had grown to a complete derailing and going off the road, as a boat traveling a long distance -- with course correcting along the way -- would end up way off track like a wayward Columbus. I was stressed out in asking all these things.
  • She answered without stress, gently smiling at my silliness, manliness, foolishness, and blindness.
  • But there is an extraordinary thing I realized/remembered as I was talking to her about these things (Dhamma), these matters so rare in the universe that only someone with a real kalyana-mitta can ever hope to hear, and it came when I formulated a preface to a question like a lawyer would, establishing common ground, being on the same page. I wanted to ask her about her level of attainment and that of the others. But to do so, I needed to establish that she was ahead of all the others on the retreat, or was it the case that the elder and much more experienced meditator and teacher Shaila Catherine was ahead, and where was Nikki Mighafori in the ranking, and for that matter, at what level was the teacher?
  • She answered no answer, just a perplexed look, a series of sounds and utterances that gave me to believe we were not sharing common ground and not on the same page.
  • I pushed, "Look, regular people are 'uninstructed ordinary worldlings,' right?"
  • She answered, "Okay?" as if confused by my very lowest common denominator question.
  • And I kept pushing, and any Aryan (any "noble" disciple, any attained person of whatever ever rank, stage, or level) is greater than that, right?
  • She answered more perplexed, "Okay??"
  • I pushed to the point of breaking, "What? You won't give me that? There are ordinary people and there are attained people, and they're not the same because of a 'change-of-lineage' (gotrabhu), riiiiight? The Buddha said as much! It's foundational to the whole Teaching in this school of Buddhism. This is not hard. This is not a trick question..."
  • She responded, "And why are you asking?"
  • I, exasperated, kept pushing through, as if I were doing a set of heavy weights at the gym and just needed to get a certain number of reps in even if it hurt, "I'm trying to establish that there's a difference. There are ordinary people there and extraordinary. And among the latter group, there are gradients..."
  • She looked puzzled, dismissive, not catching on, "Okay???"
  • I barked, "Well, come on! There's that, right? And this is when she blew my mind. Did you, dear reader, know that enlightened people (in the specific Buddhist sense of the word bodhi and not what other traditions, religions, or systems think or mean when they use the exact same word) DO NOT THINK OF THEMSELVES as better than anyone? Sure, you did. Anyone can figure that out. They know there's no ego; they go lording it around over anyone's head. BUT, did you know, enlightened people (of whatever stage or level) DO NOT THINK OF THEMSELVES as worse than anyone? Sure, come on, that can be deduced by anyone who gives it a little thought. "Saints" (Aryans, the noble ones) are nice. Here's the mindblower: Reader, did you know that enlightened people DO NOT THINK OF THEMSELVES as equal to anyone? 🤯 (See the Pali canon sutta "With Khema" AN 6.49: Khema Sutta—translated by Bhikkhu Sujato for suttacentral.net) And this is what was happening here. We were getting snagged and tangled up on the very first presupposition of stages and levels. It's not that she didn't know or had forgotten that there were levels, but what had happened is that she had DIRECTLY REALIZED that in reality she is no better, no worse, and not equal to others. These Aryans just don't think that way. It doesn't occur to them. They don't frame things that way anymore. And they may not even remember ever having done so, or so it would seem as I tried to remind her that this is how the whole world thought, including the Buddha, if we can deduce this from his teaching that there were levels of attainment and therefore it is possible to designate someone as higher, lower, or equal to someone else, anyone else.
  • She just looked at, as if remembering, then came back to herself, "And????" leading me to make my point, whatever my point was originally going to be. I didn't remember, and there was no sense in asking if we could not agree on that much for starters. This was a nonstarter.
  • "Wow," I thought, the things in the ancient sacred texts are really true: Aryans are this way or that, whether it makes sense to us or not, whether it fits our frames, whether we agree or would have it otherwise. Buddhism (the Buddha Dharma), what the Buddha taught, was not "hammered out by mere reasoning." The Buddha directly saw these things, knew these things, taught a path-and-practice for others to be able to DIRECTLY know and see these things. I bowed to her and left it at that for the moment. There are some things we are not meant to know before we are ready to know it. And all of this, it seems, was none of my business. It would become my business when I directly experienced these things and became one who knows-and-sees. This is a teaching for the wise, after all, not for those sunk in worldliness, distraction, delusion, resentment, aversion, fear, greediness, selfishness, self-centeredness, or all manner of wrong view arising from ignorance, delusion, and holding views.
  • And now I realize that one way to talk about all this might be through the Taoist video at the top of this article. Maybe on this path we are becoming what we always were and have been -- nobody. Certainly, nobody special. Not better, not worse, not equal. The worldly mind will completely reject this out of hand. It's preposterous! This is a patriarchy founded on a hierarchy as taught by the oligarchy and a lineage of worldly rulers all the way up to the first heaven. And we must submit to them because that's the way God wants it. 🙄 That's ludicrous and preposterous, but it just might be closer to the truth than the way we've been carrying on here in the world IF "the God" we are talking about is the Monad (the One in Gnosticism, the Brahman not Brahma in Buddhism, possibly even the Tao in Taoism). That GOD doesn't want or not want, doesn't look on needing it to be one way or another. In that sense, there is just being. We can just be (though technically there is no "being," only becoming, this ceaseless impersonal process of radical impermanence as everything falls apart and rebuilds all the time, marked by three universal characteristics the Buddha taught again and again, implicitly and explicitly: All things are radically impermanent, utter unable to ever fulfill us, and impersonal whether we imagine there to be a stable "self" or not. That's reality. Here we are over here never really in touch with what's real due to all the distractions, talking, ruminating, thinking, and everything else coming at us all at once. If we slow down, let things be, allow, accept, welcome experience as it is without needing to change or "improve" it, we can quite possibly make quick progress to the end of all suffering and the arising of liberating-insight, the wisdom that has gone beyond, that which we set as our goal when setting off on a spiritual path. So "be nobody." After all, that's what really are already, and the sooner we get right with it, the happier we are likely to be so we can see things sa they really are and always have been.

Tuesday, July 21, 2026

Truth about time: We've been lied to


What does Buddhism have to say about "time"? One thing's sure, there is anionic time called the Eternal Now. There is only now, and there only ever has been now.

But that is hard to understand until one experiences it then it suddenly seems obvious. Ask Eckhart Tolle. He experienced it and wrote The Power of Now with just one message for the world, talk after talk.

Ram Dass on LSD saw love
Ram Dass (Harvard Jew turned Hindu Dr. Richard Alpert) wrote the classic Be Here Now, having also realized this truth about time. There are wonderful stories in ancient Indian texts about time that say that time is NOT simultaneous. It is relative. It differs from plane to plane in Buddhism's 31 Planes of Existence.

Ancient India understood that time in terms of kalpas (aeons) explained by akasha devas (space entities). It moves differently in heavenly worlds, lasting so much longer than our time -- but possibly happening at the same time. Time will feel very long, even eternal, in other worlds, on other planes. But though that much time may move that slowly there, it will not simultaneously move that way on earth.

Physics: Time does not exist

Whoa, perhaps too much thinking doesn't pay and I should just be attentive to now and accept.
.
The ancient Vedas speak of time travel?
One Vedic Sanskrit tale speaks of a king and his daughter who were visited by ETs and invited to visit their world/planet. They boarded a vimana (UFO), flew there very quickly, enjoyed a day there, then asked to return home. They were told they could be returned home, but a great deal of time would have passed on earth while they were visiting. When they returned, everyone they ever knew would be long dead and forgotten.

Our time metaphor is a little backwards

The Time Paradox: Psychology
But this is all I have to say about time. I learned it in college as an anecdote in the social sciences. I laughed at how backward some human societies can be until I suddenly realized they were right. We were wrong and we had always been wrong. You know how we say time is an arrow moving from left to right?

We can, and often do, picture time like a boat moving west on a river. The boat relentlessly move from the past (on the left) through the present (in the middle) into the future (on the right). That may all be true. What this society saw is the opposite of what we see, and that is:

Which way am I facing in the arrow of time?
Where are we standing on this boat moving through time?

WEST'S ANSWER: Of course, we're toward the front of the boat, in the driver's seat, looking forward into the future, the present all around us, and the past vanishing into the distance behind us.

THEIR ANSWER
: Of course, we are in the back of the boat only ever looking backward into the past. We can never see the future (other than with premonitions, omens, or exhibitions of psychic power) because the boat hasn't gotten there yet (and of course never really does because everything always stays in the present, which is all there is).

What time is it? - Look carefully.
But, we might argue, what about the past? I'm always living in the past, except for the time I "spend" (metaphorically like a limited amount of money) living in the future.

I spend next to no time here, now, just being.

I ruminate and am sad about the past, or I worry and am nervous about the future. I more or less ignore the present -- except when meditating, practicing mindfulness (sati), or listening to the Dhamma, the Buddha's Teachings.

Time travel will confuse us more
The truth is, if we think about it, even when we are "living" in the past or future, we only ever actually do that NOW. We don't go back to the past, and we don't actually "go" to the future. Those are just designations, so that the only time we ever are when we look is in the present. We are not present for the present, but that's where we actually are. Virtually, we're wasting away in the imaginary past or imaginary future, being imagined right NOW. But where are we on that imaginary boat in the example?

That's right, they're right. We've been wrong and haven't been seeing it correctly. We are not in the front part looking forward, and we certainly aren't in the driver's seat (controlling all that's coming at us). We are being carried along, not knowing where we're going, and only finding out after the fact.

I'm bored being here now. Let's talk future.
It could well be that this "now" business is not just a designation. Like a book or album, all time may already be. The story might already be set but we just haven't read it or heard it yet. So we imagine we have perfect freewill and will find out as things transpire.

Time exists, but how it exists -- not as a natural and integral part of the universe, but an artificial and imposed screening device -- is the real question. In a book, there is no time. It is all there all at once. In reading it or flipping through the pages, we create a kind of time or sequencing, ordering, stacking. We can read slowly or jump around very quickly, but wherever we go (in the book), there we are. When? Now. Only ever now.
Paradox?
Screening psych applicants for Stanford Prison
This is the first paradox of time: Our attitudes toward time have a profound impact on our lives and world, yet we seldom recognize it. The authors' goal is to help reclaim yesterday, enjoy today, and master tomorrow with new ways of seeing and working with our past, present, and future. Just as Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences permanently altered our understanding of intelligence and Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink gave us an appreciation for the adaptive unconscious, Prof. of Social Psychology Philip Zimbardo (infamous for his Stanford Prison Experiment) and Dr. John Boyd’s book changes the way we think about and experience time.
  • Astropyre (video); text by Dhr. Seven, Pat Macpherson, Ashley Wells (eds.), Wisdom Quarterly

Tuesday, June 9, 2026

Time Travel and Buddhist physics (video)

Should consciousness follow the body (in lab) or the body follow consciousness (on mat)?
.
Always be mindful of the here and now.
Dr. Crazynovich(Dr. Crazynovich) April 19, 2026: John Titor and the Second American Civil War. On November 2, 2000, a user calling himself "TimeTravel_0" appeared on the Time Travel Institute forums and made a claim that should have been dismissed as obvious fiction. He was a soldier from the year 2036, sent back on a military mission to retrieve an IBM 5100 computer that his era needed to debug legacy systems inherited from the late twentieth century. He had been routed through the year 2000 for what he called personal reasons. He was there, he said, to observe the world before it changed. Within weeks, he migrated to the Art Bell forums under a new name, John Titor, and began posting with a specificity that no casual hoaxer has ever sustained for long. He described his time machine in engineering detail.
COMMENTARY: Mindfulness of Time Travel
Dhr. Seven, Sheldon S., Ashley Wells, Wisdom Quarterly, Ananda, June 10, 2026

Man, Spinoza was as genius as Tesla!
It is deadly easy to laugh at "time travel." But what we are laughing at is not the real thing so much as all our assumptions about it. Is it real? We have reason to think so. Jewish science, for example, in the form of Alvy Einstein, Bibi Spinoza, and Dr. Brucey Goldberg. Alvy drew up no equations making it impossible, did he? Time might go in either direction, and there's the curious case of retrocausation, not to mention "spooky action at a distance," which Alvy doubted, now known as quantum entanglement.

What about God? - Yeah, what about it? When Alvy, who was quite possibly a JewBu, was asked about that it, he stated that his God was Spinoza's God.
But who cares about science? If we cared, we might make more of fellow scientists raising an alarm in Pasadena about our planet/plane.

Pederastic Jewish fantasy as Da Costa 'instructs'
little Bibi Spinoza on his lap (Sam Hirszenberg)
However, Bruce Goldberg is the most interesting of the three named, for he says with absolute certainty that not only is time travel possible, we're already doing it. Who's "we"? We as in you and me. What? Here's easy proof. Close your eyes. Close them! Hold perfectly still. More still, samadhi-like stillness, quietude. Feel it?

Right NOW, right here, we're traveling into the future. It's true! Look at the calendar! Look at a watch! Oh, that doesn't count! No proof is good enough, and it never has been. Stubborn!

Which way does time travel? In a spiral?
So we are "traveling" in time, you admit? Yes, look, the real question is, Can we go back (or sideways) in time? That immediately brings up the problem of space, not outer space, not even inner space. I'm talking about the space right here. To go "sideways" is my way of saying bilocation or colocation. For instance, when "now" arrived the first time, I was right here. Might I, on the second occasion, have been somewhere else?

Can I go back to that now and be somewhere else that time? If so, that would be time travel! Can I, or all of us, go back at all? Goldberg says yes, and if you pay him, he'll take you back, so you can shut yer yapper and stop asking all these doubt-filled questions full of investigative energy and childlike curiosity. After all, what will that mean?
  • Ven. Thay, what time is it?
    NOTE: If time travel becomes possible, WHEN will we have it? WHEN will it be true? WHEN will I get to do it? - These questions were all answered in an instant when we gathered to protest at JPL's back parking lot near the head of Tovaangar's Gabrieleno Trail (JPL). We were all chanting, "What do we want!?" - "Time travel!" - "When do we want it!?" - "Whenever!" ("Whenever"? Shouldn't we have answered, "NOW!"? which is how protest chants usually go? Well, yes, but as many on the scene argued, it won't matter. Why? It won't matter because WHEN we have time travel (due to our ability to go back or forward to any time that's ever been or will be), we will have had time travel all along, and "all along" includes NOW, which is when we have it, if we EVER get it. Get it? See the problem? If not, refer to the increasingly inaccurate trilogy borne out of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which the genius Douglas Adams discusses the problematic grammar (tense constuctions) of having it.
  • [Eckhart Tolle, when is "NOW"? And, by the way, how many "nows" are there?]
Step into the Eternal Now
That is hard to say because it seems to mean various things -- and those things change our view and version of "reality." Sci-fi says going back and changing anything means changing it [and everything else due to the butterfly effect] for everyone.

What if it only changes for us? For example, I said "no." What if I went back in time and were to say "yes"? Just that change, what would it do? Would all the world and universe be different? Would it shatter our dimension? Would I be happy? Would the world regret it? It seems Brucey Baby is talking about not that but jumping timelines to a line (which is to say a time) where I did. And what happened?

I could go see. Would anybody else see? They would in that timeline, but I might like to come back to this timeline. Could I? Yes, Dr. Goldberg says, and he adds that that's what we're doing all the time anyway. (That may be the realization of reality we are not ready for).
Maybe we should just Be Here Now
So we already are time traveling! Jewish science. Is it a coincidence that those identifying as Ashkenazi Jews are the one who have made these speculations, advancements, and claims?

Maybe, but no one can say anything about it or risk being ostracized, listed, and categorized as an "antidentite." So grin and bear it and not just because our beloved Dr. B. Goldberg of LA is a dentist who may have inhaled some pharmaceutical fumes.
Real 'physics' must be tested
Q: Buddhist physics proves? A: Awakening now! - Weightless in space and stuck forever?

Wait then, what is "space"?

What is the absence of zero? (Enso)
In Buddhist phenomenology, akasha is divided into "limited space" (ākāsa-dhātu) and "endless [or boundless] space" (ajatākasā) [9]. The Vaibhāṣika, an early school of Buddhist philosophy, holds the view that the existence of akasha is real [10].

Ākāsa is identified as the first arūpa jhāna ("formless/immaterial absorption," dhyana in Buddhism), but that plane (among the four immaterial planes of the 31 Planes of Existence) and that absorption (by which one arrives at it) is usually translated as "infinite space" [11], with WQ preferring "boundless" space.

Two meanings of "space"
Sir, is 'space' fifth great element?
"Space" (Pali Ākāśa, Sanskrit, akasha) holds two primary meanings in Abhidhamma and Abhidharma analysis [12].

There is spatiality, where Ākāśa is defined as the absence that delimits forms. Like the empty space within a door frame, it is an emptiness (hollow) that is shaped and defined by the material boundary surrounding it.

And there is "vast space," where Ākāśa is described as the absence of obstruction (boundlessness), categorized as one of the nityadharmas ("permanent phenomena") because it remains unchanged over time.

Ether (aether) is real
In this sense, it is likened to the discarded Western concept of aether—a real but scientifically rejected immaterial, bright, lminous "fluid" (possibly like the Bible's "waters above" the firmament) that supports the Four Great (material) Elements (Buddhism's mahābhūta).
  • These "elements" (dhatus) are actually four major qualities of matter or materiality understood as various particles (RUPA-kalapas), exhibiting a predominance of one quality over the others, which amounts to more than a dozen major expressions placed for simplicity into four big categories.
  • Now listen up. This is verified Buddhist science.
    BUDDHIST
    "PARTICLE" PHYSICS: A rupa-kalapa or "form particle" is a "corporeal group," a "material unit" that designates a combination of several physical phenomena constituting a temporary, flowing, functional unity.
  • Therefore, for instance, inanimate or so-called "dead matter" forms the most primitive group, consisting only of eight physical phenomena. These are called the "pure eightfold unit" or "octad" (suddhatthaka-kalāpa), comprised of: The Four Elements (solidity, fluidity, temperature, motion); color, smell, taste, nutriment (pathavī, āpo, tejo, vāyo; vanna, gandha, rasa, ojā). 
  • In The Path of Purification (Vis.M.) and elsewhere, it is also called ojatthamaka-kalāpa, "the octad with nutriment as the eighth factor." The simplest form of living matter is the "ninefold vitality unit" or "life-ennead" (jīvita-navaka-kalāpa), formed by adding "vitality" (jiva) to the octad. Seven decads, or "units of ten" (dasaka-kalāpa), are formed by adding to the ninefold unit one of the following corporeal phenomena: HEART (cittahrdayam, the physical seat of mind) [the physical seat of consciousness, not formally declared by the Buddha but understood to be located near the physical heart at a tiny spot at the upper part of it where it exhibits greenish hue and mirror-like function, reflecting conscious experience, which may sound preposterous but is personally verifiable by meditative-scientists, as are all of the claims made in this physics section], sex, eye, ear, nose, tongue, or body.
  • See Vis.M. XVIII, 4; Compendium of Buddhist Philosophy (PTS), p. 164, 250; Atthasālini Tr., II, 413f. Source
Oh, to know the world as the Buddha knew it!
Ether's radiant quality (aether meaning "brightness") often serves as a metaphor for pure luminous (or original) mind or buddhahood, which is described as shining like the sun or space.

In Buddhist samatha meditation, ākāśa is significant in the context of the sphere of boundless/infinite space (ākāśānantyāyatana), the first of the four immaterial absorptions (arupa-jhanas or dhyānas) [12].

Philosophically, ākāśa is considered one of the uncompounded phenomena (asaṃskṛtadharmas) in six Buddhist schools, including the defunct Sarvāstivāda and Mahāsāṃghika, and later the Yogācāra. However, three other schools, including the extant Theravāda, reject this interpretation [12]. More
Time in Greek mythology
Chronos and New Year Cupid
Chronos
(Ancient Greek Χρόνος, Romanized Khronos, lit. "Time," Modern Greek ['xronos], also spelled Chronus like the Wise Woman The Crone but not the Titan Cronus), is a personification of time in Greek mythology discussed in pre-Socratic philosophy and later literature [1]. His consort is Goddess Ananke.*
 
Chronos is frequently confused with, or perhaps consciously identified with, the Titan Cronus in antiquity, due to the similarity in names [2]. The identification became more widespread during the Renaissance ("Rebirth"), giving rise to the iconography of Father Time wielding the harvesting scythe [3] like Death (Buddhist Mara).

Greco-Roman mosaics depicted Chronos as a man turning the zodiac wheel [4]. He is comparable to the deity Aion (kalpa, aeon) as a symbol of cyclical time [5]. More
  • Ananke and her daughters the Fates
    *Goddess Ananke: In ancient Greek religion and mythology, Ananke (Ἀνάγκη, from the common noun "force, constraint, necessity," ἀνάγκη), is a personification of inevitability or compulsion, and is customarily depicted holding a spindle. The births of Ananke and her incestuous brother and divine consort, Chronos (the personification of time), were thought to mark the division between the aeon of Chaos and the beginning of our cosmos. She is considered the most powerful dictator (director) of fate and circumstance. Mortals and gods (devas) alike respect her power and pay her homage. She is considered the Mother of the Fates, hence she is thought to be the only being to overrule their decisions [1] (according to some sources, excepting Zeus also). According to Daniel Schowalter and Steven Friesen, she and the Fates "are all sufficiently tied to early Greek mythology to make their Greek origins likely"[2]. More
Alan Watts: Atomic Theory (Tao/God)
(Official Alan Watts OrgAtomos ("uncuttable"), smallest material unit

Monday, May 11, 2026

Strawberries for Zen: mindfulness now

(Zenith Zen) The Zen Buddhist story that will change how you spend the next 60 seconds of your life

Buddhism, Taoism say: "Be here now."
One of the greatest moments in my life, which happened early on, was coming to watch TV on a Saturday morning in LA. My dad already had the TV all tied up. But he was drunk and drifting off. Surely, he didn't know what was on. If I could just exhibit enough patience until his drooping eyes shut, I could slowly lower the volume, change it, and slowly raise the volume again. He'd never know. He would think one program ended and another started.

He may have been onto me because just as he started to drift off, he would rouse himself with some coughing or clearing his throat. I had to wait, pretending to be interested in what he had on, some old timey British movie from the 60s. Half aware, he kept an eye on me. And it seemed every time I made a move to change the channel, he would snap back to consciousness. I had to sit there looking all innocent, watching whatever he had on, until I became mesmerized by what it was.

This remarkable movie was funny and grew increasingly funny as the viewer realized what was happening. I immediately wished for a way to send it back to the beginning so I could see how it unfolded from the start. But there was no way. One could only enjoy as little as one had left of it. I didn't even know if I had missed half of it, 90% of it, or how much was left. But it kept getting funnier and funnier.

The set up was a Faustian bargain between a nobody up against a brilliant and angelic Beelzebub. The first had apparently sold his soul for seven wishes, and the latter was tricking him into quickly using them up. All the schlub wanted was the love of an unattainable beauty he worked with.

And that was enough for the Devil. All he had to do was trick the schlub into picking yet another foolish strategy for attaining his goal and then pull the rug out from under him by giving him what he literally asked for and never the spirit of what he wished. The Devil used the beauty as the bait, and the man kept biting...until, seemingly out of nowhere, he grew a backbone and chose to stop.

"What do you mean 'stop'?" the Devil demanded. "You're too smart for me, I can't get what I wish for, so I'm not going to use up any more wishes." The Devil never heard of such a thing. If the man doesn't use all seven wishes, well, the deal's off. He never gets his soul. The man had inadvertently found a gaping loophole in the blood pact bargain.

Beelzebub was too smart to accept no for an answer, so he seduced the man with friendly talk and an offer to use his place to rest himself, in the meanwhile sending in Lust (played by Raquel Welch) to seduce and confuse him. Then Vanity, all the Seven Deadly Sins at his disposal. The man was soon turned around and continued to wish.

During that brief period of friendship, Beelzebub let the man tag along during his busy day doing mischief and mayhem. As part of those escapades, they found themselves up a telephone pole cutting wires and making prank calls to a woman whose husband was cheating on her, breaking the bad news to get the philanderer in trouble with his wife.

The man, already put off by his own bargain gone bad, felt disgusted at the Devil's behavior. "How can you live with yourself, doing all these petty bad deeds, hurting people?" the man said judgmentally.

The Devil answered that it was his job. Anyway, it was just mischief. But he was hurt and he got the man back with one of the many zingers in this super-clever film. Who knows how this fantastic piece of comic morality tale came to be on American TV, which is usually filled with tripe and cotton candy. This was a truffle by comparison.

The Devil says to the man, "In the words of the great philosopher Lee Kwai Kwak, imagine you were walking along when a tiger jumped out and began to chase you. You run away but come to the edge of a cliff. Looking over, you notice the tiger's mate chomping her jaws waiting for you to fall. You turn around to go the other way, but there's the male tiger chomping its jaws about to eat you. What would you do?" The man's answer?

He exclaims, "What a stupid question! I wouldn't get myself into such a mess in the first place!"

"Oh, no, not you. You're far better off! Here you are halfway up a pole in Berkshire, half your wishes gone and no idea how to get down. You have nothing to learn from Lee Kwai Kwak and his tigers."

The man is nonplussed, realizing he should have paid attention about what to do in such a hopeless situation. Now, not having listened, he's on the edge of ruin.


Bedazzled (1967 film)
The film moves on to a climactic scene about the perils of rock 'n roll fame, a moment that could never be nearly so funny had one not sat through every previous trick the Devil pulled on the man. The film? Bedazzled (1967 film). The man? Dudley Moore. The Devil? Peter Cook. So incredibly impactful was watching this that it took years, but I tracked it down.

Vidiots, the world's greatest video store
Vidiots of Santa Monica (now reborn in Eagle Rock) had it! More than that I appeared it. Imagine loving a film so much that you get yourself in it. How? One can't go back in time and change the same timeline. No, but one can appear in the sequel then get cut out of it as the numb director chops the climactic scene, the funniest scene, and replaces it with a nonsensical gag. That's Hollywood for ya, every sequel a waste of time money grab.

Seeing it from the beginning, it was even funnier and more a work of genius than I could have realized and better than I remembered. Every Christian should consider it a must-see to question assumptions about their faith. Every atheist who knows a thing or two about what the Church teaches should see it to see those assumptions skewered. Every Buddhist might way to pay attention when the Trickster begins to explain the Zen parable of the tigers and the strawberries. Will anyone listen? Who knows? One can lead a vidiot to videotape, but one cannot make anyone get it.