In Buddhist culture, there exists the core notion of the three poisons, which are considered to be the cause of all sufferings.

In English, the poisons are generally translated as confusion, desire, and hatred, or variations of these terms.

In my experience, while confusion and hatred are generally grasped correctly, the poison of desire is often misunderstood.

In short, confusion refers to the mistaken notion that individuals exist in separation from one another and from everything else. In other words, it corresponds to identification to an « I » that is separate from everything else.

From this confusion, hatred, or aversion, arises. It refers to the feeling that results from being confronted to a particular experience one doesn’t appreciate, and to the activity of nurturing this feeling.

Similarly, from this confusion, desire, or greed, arises. But what does it refer to ?

One definition of desire is : « the feeling that accompanies an unsatisfied state. » So, in other words, desire refers to the feeling that results from being confronted to the absence of a particular experience one appreciates, and to the activity of nurturing this feeling.

·

In order to avoid the sufferings that stem from desire and aversion, it is tempting to simply eliminate what causes desire and aversion. In other words, just like, in the case of aversion, one might be tempted to sever all interactions with objects of aversion, in the case of desire, one might be tempted to relinquish all objects of desire.

In my experience, this temptation to avoid, although quite common it would seem, is based in error. It stems from not recognizing the function of the arising of the objects of both desire and aversion.

I believe it is important to recognize that objects of aversion arise in order to redirect the individual on their path. They are important clues that inform about something which has gone wrong, that the mark has been missed. And thus, trying to suppress them once they have arisen is like denying oneself of the lesson. Ultimately, it is choosing not to learn, and not to grow. So in this sense it is self-denial.

Attempting to eradicate objects of aversion is the act of compounding error with additional error. It is creating more bad karma, instead of attempting to understand, and to create good karma. It only makes matters worse. A striking illustration of this course of action would be escalation of hostilities leading to war.

·

The next interrogation is then : why do objects of desire arise ?

According to the Wiktionary, the word « desire » could come from de and sidus, the latter meaning « a star. »

Thus, I believe it is essential to realize that objects of desire arise in order to confirm that the actions of the individual are on the mark. They are important beacons too. They inform about something which is going according to plan. They embody the next part of the path which is gradually coming into view.

The function of such objects of desire is also to provide incentives for maintaining the forward motion on the rightful path. As such, they are essential to keep the growth process alive. They are stars pointing to the destination and the repentance-free path.

So, similarly, attempting to relinquish objects of desire is basically self-denial. It is the act of not rewarding good practice. It creates bad karma, bad habit-energy, because of training oneself in such a fashion as to prevent the process from occurring properly.

·

In my view, the crucial distinction to make is that the problem is not the objects of desire, but desire itself. The problem is in the sustaining of that feeling that something is absent. In other words, it is focusing on missing instead of focusing on the process which leads to getting.

It is a problem because it throws off the process. When energy is not invested in the process, the process doesn’t yield fruits. And when the process doesn’t yield fruits, then, eventually, it becomes tempting to abandon the process altogether.

And then all sorts of doubts arise. Perhaps the process isn’t worthwhile, or perhaps one isn’t worthy, or perhaps it’s not okay to want things, or perhaps it’s not okay to have things, or perhaps one doesn’t deserve anything and everything. Ultimately, if they are pursued, all such doubts become hurts which will have to be healed.

It is important to observe that these doubts are objects of aversion themselves. Doubt is not a pleasant experience. When these doubts arise, they in fact inform us that something is going wrong, namely, that the process has been abandoned. And indeed, when one resumes focusing on process, these doubts vanish.

Thus, all kind of problems arise when one stops addressing the process, and instead becomes obsessive about the fruits. That is desire. That is the poison.

·

And I guess the point is, that it’s okay to want things and to have things. In fact, it is necessary if one is to live in the ordinary. It’s part of the process. And it’s okay to have a dream, or a vision in one’s mind about where one wants to go or what one wants to experience. In fact, isn’t it unavoidable ?

But if one finds that when they pursue the vision, their efforts don’t seem to bring them any closer to it, then making themselves feel bad about it by concentrating on the unsatisfied state is to be avoided. Because that is desire. That is the poison.

One should instead resume concentrating on process.

Why focus on denial and distance, instead of focusing on entitlement and the joy of the experience of advancing towards, and reaching the object of desire ? Why thus make distance and denial seem bigger, instead of emphasizing the positive aspects ?

Isn’t desire subtly masochistic ? Isn’t it an addiction to self-denial, and suffering, and gloominess ?

Instead, why not direct one’s efforts towards what one can do, in the present moment, to keep going forward towards the fulfillment of the vision ?

·

(« Photo of the magnetic field of two bar magnets with unlike poles close together » by Alexander Wilmer Duff)

There are equivalents to this interpretation in other cultures. For instance :

In « The Sufi Message of Hazrat Inayat Khan » :

Many times a person in a pessimistic mood, in a kind of disturbed condition may wish for death, wish for failure, wish for anything. If he only knew what an effect it has, he would be frightened. Even in pain, if a person could refrain from saying: ‘I am in pain’, he would do a great deal of good to himself. If a person who has met with misfortune would even avoid saying: ‘I am experiencing misfortune’, it would be a great thing. For when a person acknowledges the existence of something he does not want, he only gives it a greater life. In the same way when a person acknowledges something that he wants, he gives that life too. But when a person says: ‘Oh, I have waited and waited and waited; my ship will never come’, he is keeping his ship back in the sea. His ship will never arrive in the port, while the one who does not even see the ship, but says: ‘It is coming, it is coming’ – he is calling it. It will come.

(source : The Sufi Message of Hazrat Inayat Khan, Vol. Two – THE MYSTICISM OF SOUND AND MUSIC, CHAPTER I : The Power of the Word)

From Søren Kierkegaard :

Our life always expresses the result of our dominant thoughts.

From Henry David Thoreau :

The world is but a canvas to the imagination.

From Richard Wagner

One supreme fact which I have discovered is that it is not willpower, but fantasy-imagination that creates. Imagination is the creative force. Imagination creates reality.

·

And in conclusion, as far as Buddhism is concerned, I believe it is important to realize that

Buddhism proposes vehicles (namely : Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana, wherein the -yana suffix translates as vehicle).

Or, in other words, Buddhism does not propose destinations, apart perhaps from its core promise of leading to the end of suffering, which can be construed as a sort of destination.

But from this, one shouldn’t infer that there aren’t any destinations, as, obviously, if there weren’t any, then why would vehicles be needed ?

Perhaps the point is not to systematically let go of everything, like the proverbial monk in the cave at the top of mountain, in the hopes of attaining an ultimate experience of complete enlightenment, from which there is no return.

Perhaps what Buddhism proposes is a way of functioning in the cosmos, free of suffering, by virtue of having recognized the mechanisms of the cosmos, and of diligently remaining observant of these mechanisms so as to stay on the repentance-free path.

Perhaps enlightenment is correctly understanding the vehicles, recognizing how and why they work, and extinguishing the tendencies, such as desire, that prevent the vehicles from functioning properly, so as to be able to use the vehicles to reach destinations one envisions, free of suffering, by virtue of having recognized the behaviors that ultimately cause suffering, and of abstaining from them.

Perhaps this is the Magic City, from where everything that can be envisioned can be experienced.

The rationale seems to be that the intent of the challengers is merely to « make wrong, » and that those who challenge are just not « confident in their own beliefs. »

But what then if the intent is not to « make wrong » ? What if the intent is to shed a different light ? What if the prompting comes from the heart and not the ego ? What if the ego tries to ignore the overwhelming need to challenge, but ultimately fails ? Should we abstain from challenging simply because we are confident in our own beliefs ? Should we simply let others cope on their own however they can ?

To me, there’s a major flaw in this abstention. In fact, it would be correct if we were not intrinsically related to one another. But we are…

In my view, there is a form of individualistic spirituality that seems to be rampant these days. In the vocabulary of Buddhism (I use it because it’s the one I know), this would be the equivalent of the Hinayana, which is the so-called « small vehicle » which leads to the so-called « small nirvana. » In my understanding, its hallmark is detachment, whereby one can free themselves, to a certain extent, by recognizing how their attachments cause numerous sufferings.

But this detachment is also a form of attachment, and the detachment cycle must culminate in detachment, not only of attachments, but of detachment itself, and even from the notion of attachment-detachment. This is necessary in order for true engagement to take place, wherein one can truly invest themselves in worthy objectives without egoistic concerns for their own sake.

In Buddhist terminology, this is equivalent to the mission of the Bodhisattva who vows to free not only themselves, but the whole world. This lofty undertaking is not merely an apparently noble but ultimately rhetorical gesture. The Bodhisattva makes the vow because there’s no other choice. When one truly realizes how they are indeed their whole world, then individualistic liberation becomes nonsensical. Why do you think the original Buddha kept on preaching and teaching and setting up schools after enlightenment ? How can one seriously claim to be in any way enlightened while parts of themselves are left utterly in the dark ?

In other words, the so-called small nirvana is all well and good in theory, but in practice, exactly because we are one, exactly because I am you and you are me, exactly because there is no outside, exactly because there’s only this one infinite consciousness that we all partake in, large parts of the world crumble around the Hinayanist while they revel in their navel.

If it were not true, who would need to seek enlightenment ? People would have learned detachment a long while ago and the matter would have been settled for all eternity. But obviously, it is not the case. Small nirvana is actually child’s play. It’s not even one tenth of the battle. « *eff* you » is not the ultimate spiritual way, it’s the way of those whose understanding doesn’t reach beyond their own ego.

In doubt, try it for yourself. It doesn’t take much effort to sever one’s outflows. Anybody with sufficient determination can achieve this in a matter of a few years, and probably even quicker than that if they really mean it. Then, try to remain silent if you can, try to remain aloof. And when occasions for repentance keep arising despite your sainthood, then you’ll know that you cannot let your brothers and sisters in the dark without suffering the sorry consequences.

But thankfully, such a thing cannot happen, exactly because we are all one, we are irresistibly attracted to each other, we are overwhelmingly compelled to interact so as to dispel the utterly dark parts of ourselves.

I exhort you, do not be mistaken, this has never been a « I’m-okay-never-mind-the-others » kind of thing. There’s only one mind. Either all of it is enlightened, or none of us truly is. Either we all go, or nobody goes.

Obviously, there is still work to do. And here is my challenge to you : stop resting on your laurels and start fighting for real !

the « objectiveness » of reality is a function of the strength of identification to self…

the stronger the ego, the more marked the duality between self and non-self…

the aim of reality is to foster the return to egolessness…

thus, the more egotistic one is, the more rigid their reality appears…

and similarly, the less egotistic one is, the more malleable their reality appears…

Mathematics of Karma :

the gap in correlation between what’s outside and what’s inside is a measure of ego…

Back in 1998, I underwent a very peculiar experience, indeed, thus far at least, a once-in-a-lifetime event, which opened many doors for me and confirmed some of the directions I had previously chosen.

In time, I came to consider this occurrence as an instance of satori, a sudden momentary flash of enlightenment if you will, the intensity of which still resonates with me to this very day.

Satori is a Japanese Buddhist term for enlightenment that literally means “understanding”. In the Zen Buddhist tradition, satori refers to a flash of sudden awareness, or individual enlightenment, and is considered a “first step” or embarkation toward nirvana. (source : Wikipedia)

In hindsight, I recognize the event to be a defining moment of my existence as the knowledge I have accessed through this unique experience became a cornerstone of my whole approach to living.

·

At the time, I was living in a large cottage located on Chemin St-Louis in Québec City. Friends and I had rented it in July 1997 so we would have a place to make some music without disturbing the neighbors. Just like the house, the rent was huge, and so the three of us had hoped to enroll three more housemates via ads. Things eventually unfolded as planned and before long there was six young and not-so-young adults living under this one roof.

At the beginning of 1998, I decided to move my belongings from the second floor to the basement where the music room was located. There was a screening room down there, but as we almost never used it, it turned out to be the perfect place for me. It was larger than my former room, so not only did all my stuff fit nicely into it, but it left me with enough space to setup an additional work table, a diminutive atelier where I would paint, draw, and make other such visual art pieces. The move also freed up one room, which allowed us to receive one more housemate. But most importantly for me, I was now just a few feet away from the music studio and that was very much appreciated whenever inspiration would strike, and it did many times a day back then.

I remember investing much time and attention into what I called « exploring the three Ps, » namely, Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy (Eastern philosophies in particular), both online and offline. I had already begun my Buddhist studies a few years earlier, and at the time of the event I had already read the Dhammapada many times, the Tibetan Book of the Dead at least once (perhaps twice my I’m not sure about the timing), and a few short sutras.

Perhaps more importantly, I was nurturing a burgeoning meditation practice, and I had begun reading the Avatamsaka Sutra, possibly the longest text of the Buddhist canon, and surely one of the most thorough. In parallel with that demanding read, which required over two years to complete, I was also reading Stephen Hawking’s « A Brief History of Time » which a housemate friend had recommended.

I was going through one of the most creative and expansive period of my life, always keeping myself purposeful in a desire to uphold Buddhist teachings. I was effectively in charge of the whole household as I was the only one of the three renters who had a steady job, and I had the privilege of working from home which meant I was available most of the time if there was a problem to be addressed around the house. So basically, when I was not developing accounting software, creating music or some other art form, studying Buddhism, exploring the recesses of human knowledge, or taking care of something in the house, chances are it was night and I was sleeping.

And thus, one particular night I had a one-of-a-kind dream wherein everything turned into this blinding pure white light into which I merged. The sheer intensity of the experience woke me up, and there I was in the middle of the night, utterly awestruck at what had just happened, sitting in my bed, deeply absorbed in a new knowledge that had been offered to me in the dream.

I was recognizing that the whole universe was replicated in my mind, but not as if the two were separate entities and that the contents of my brain were somehow a mere copy of the outside world. I was understanding that the mind and the so-called outside world were two aspects of one and the same thing, and that in fact there had never been two things. And I was realizing that a change in one of the two aspects necessarily meant a change in the other. But it was not merely an intellectual realization, it was not just a passing thought. It was like being thoroughly infused with the knowledge. It was like downloading the lesson straight to my neurons, to my whole being in fact. It was like being filled with light. It was like becoming light.

I stood up and moved to my futon where I sat back down, still enthralled by what has just occurred. I remember staying there, just looking in front of me, reflecting on this whole new idea and its ramifications, not being aware of my surroundings nor of the passage of time. When the feeling eventually subsided, I saw that the light of day had entered the screening room through its tiny and only window. Over three hours had passed in what appeared to me as possibly half an hour at the very most. Then I went back to my bed and returned to sleep.

Over the course of the following days, I was tempted many times to discuss what had happened with friends with whom I used to share my findings. But on every occasion I felt unable to weave the topic into the conversation, each time wondering how to « get there » as it always seemed to involve taking too large a step. I trusted that I could describe the event in details, but not that I could convey its intensity nor its full significance, which in fact still exceed my capacity to translate experiences into words. Eventually, other preoccupations took over and finally I decided to keep the whole thing to myself.

·

As I was preparing the present account, I searched for reference material and found the following excerpts in the « satori » entry of Wikipedia.

Satori is typically juxtaposed with the related term kensho, which translates as “seeing one’s nature”. Kensho experiences tend to be briefer glimpses, while satori is considered to be a deeper spiritual experience. Satori is an intuitive experience and has been described as being similar to awakening one day with an additional pair of arms, and only later learning how to use them.

It is therefore customary to use the word satori, rather than kensho, when referring to the realization of the Buddha and the Patriarchs with Bodhisattvas; these figures recognized that “all things are Buddha things” and therefore any separation between self and the universe is illusory.

I find the first excerpt to constitute a very apt illustration of how this realization felt like, while the second is a more traditional way of describing the object of the realization.

·

Looking back, my interpretation is that I’ve been graced to an experience of what is referred to in Buddhist literature as « sudden enlightenment » (as opposed to « gradual enlightenment »). As if my concentrated efforts at understanding had successfully breached the wall which until then had prevented me to access those luminous parts of my mind, allowing me a momentary glimpse at my own nature. Or perhaps I have been granted a peek at the final destination of this growth process that is life. In any case, I would venture that if it is possible for a person to experience heaven in this present existence, then surely this was it.

I wish for every being to experience this very same life-changing wonderful realization. And in fact, probably there is something I can do about it. Perhaps, if I persist in sharing my own experiences and realizations, others will be inspired to reach for them too, and hopefully they will be successful in their attempts. And then, possibly, in turn they will help others do the same, so we can all awaken one day to discover our additional pairs of hands, and keep on striving to hone them.

That which you can’t escape
Welcome as a teacher
You will never espouse
More talented lover

That which you won’t challenge
Can’t ever make you wise
But that which you surpass
In freedom makes you rise

That which you merely change
Comes back in a new guise
But that which you outgrow
Won’t again meet your eyes

A free body diagram of a mass on an inclined plane by Mets501

How long have I hankered
For the right way to go
How far have I wandered
To know what I now know

Laying under the moon
Rising up with the crow
And the wail of the loon
In the rain or the glow

How many ups and downs
I had to lose the count
Just as with forms and nouns
To keep climbing the mount

How many times I slipped
Escaping restriction
Expecting to be tripped
By disguised protection

To hell and back again
I journeyed so often
The tempter of his den
Titled me denizen

And all the times I yelled
At the gates of heaven
Why was freedom withheld
Why were no signs given

Through trials I learned the laws
Governing ascension
And got rid of the flaws
Hampering progression

Never I thought I’d shed
This world that never was
Yet where my path has led
Suddenly there I was

Trembling on highwire
Goaded under duress
Across straits so dire
That I had to witness

Known doors becoming walls
So walls could reveal doors
To magnificent halls
And infallible floors

Shatter The Mind Of Scarcity

Map of the Principality of Waldenburg

I was at A. I wanted to get to B. I did not know how to get to B. The questions that came naturally were :

- what do I have to do to get from A to B ?
- what did others do to get to B ?

I never questioned those questions. I should have. Those were wrong questions. The question should have been :

- what must I change in myself to become the person I need to be to be at B ?

And the answer is simple : it is not possible to know from the onset.

I could not have recognized what had to be changed in myself, because recognition implies cognition, or in other words, recognition implies knowing already. Knowing comes from experience. If I had already known, it would have meant that I had already experienced B. But I had not.

Furthermore, even if I could have recognized what needed to be changed, I could not necessarily have conceived the experiences needed to effect those changes.

Some people follow programs hoping to stop smoking and find that it doesn’t work for them. Some people see a man smoking and coughing his lungs out and stop on the spot.

So how did I get to B ?

Again the answer is simple : I followed my heart and trusted the process.

As mind only exists
There is no matter
Nor anti-matter
Nor non-matter
Nor non-anti-matter

And as mind only exists
Then even it can’t be said to exist
Because there’s nothing else
To discriminate it from

Detachment is also attachment to enlightenment
And attachment is also enlightenment
And so is detachment from enlightenment
And so is attachment to attachment

As mind only exists
There is no universal within
Nor universal without
Nor universal
Nor non-universal

And as now only exists
Then even it can’t be said to exist
Because there’s nothing else
To discriminate it from

Diverted
Distracted
Closed
And away

Nature restores balance
Based on choices

Attached
Detached
Universal
And one

Enlightenment is not
For it is all