answering the question "Many
people
have a
guru.
Who is your
guru?"
"You don't get to
vote
on the way it is. You already did."
...
"It is important that you get clear for yourself that your only
access
to impacting life is
action.
The world
does not care what you intend, how committed you are, how you feel, or
what you think, and certainly it has no
interest
in what you want and don't want. Take a look at life as it is lived
and see for yourself that
the world
only moves for you when you
act."
I am indebted to Clare Erhard-Trick who inspired this conversation.
In life, there's a lot to deal with - so much so that it's not trivial
to say our lives are completely filled with dealing with our
lives. With that duly noted, I've begun considering the most
efficient ways I can deal with everything I have to deal with,
especially including everything I'd rather not have to deal with at
all.
The physical
universe's
unavoidable, un-ignorable dictatorial, tyrannical decrees
demand that I deal with what I have to deal with. There's
no way out.
In demanding that I deal with whatever I have to deal with,
the physical universe
cares not a whit about what
a great guy
I am, nor about the good deeds I've done in life (it gives me no trade
discounts or cut slack), it cares not a whit about what I intend, how
committed I am, how I feel, or what I think, and certainly it has no
interest
in what I want and don't want. Oh boy, the very idea that
the physical universehas no
interest
in what we want and don't want, dies hard - does it not? But it's
what's so. "What's so" is
the physical universe's
dictatorial, tyrannical demands it makes on us with which we have to
deal.
Try this on for size: things are never any way other than
what's so. Don't lie about it. What's so rules. If you lie about
it or if you deny it, that's what's so. If you tell the truth about it
or if you accept it, that's also what's so. That much is clear. Now
there's what's so ... and then there's what I add to
what's so: my
opinions,
my preferences, my complaints, my disagreements, my
resistance
etc. And look: adding something to what's so, is
a trap.
How so, Laurence?
Like so: dealing with what's so, is sometimes bad enough. So the less
we add to what's so, it bodes well for us because now there's less
for us to deal with. But now notice when I say "what's so ...
is sometimes bad enough", isn't that
the trap?
Doesn't that add "bad enough" to what's so? Maybe a better
way of holding this, is "What's so, is what's so.". That's what
makes for less to deal with. Before, I was dealing with what's so
plus what I added to what's so. Now, I'm only
dealing with what's so. And whereas I have almost no dominion over
what's so, I have almost total dominion over what I add to what's so.
There's a compelling freedom that goeswith (as
Alan Watts
may have said) distinguishing what there is to deal with this way. It's
this: even when I don't know the best course of
action
to take next, even when I inadvertently do what doesn't work at all or
is inappropriate to the task at hand, no matter what the outcome,
that's what there is to deal with next. What's so
always serves up the next thing to deal with, whether I'm
ready or not, or whether I know what to do or not. In considering the
most efficient ways of dealing with everything I have to deal with, and
especially including that with which I'd rather not have to deal at
all, the starting point is taking on dealing with it all. And when
there's nothing left to deal with, what's so (like Doritos) will make
more.
