While every person's sharing of (which is to say, while every person's
description or account of)
transformation
may be different with regard to its content (what it looks
like, what it feels like, what we say about it, what we do and / or
what we're inspired / called to do as a result of its
impact), it's universally reported that
transformation
is a shift in
context
(that is to say
transformation
is a
contextual
shift), a shift which is an invariable experience for everyone.
In this way, describing
transformation
(which drives it into the realm of content) can only point
to the experience of
transformation
yet never fully convey it accurately. Describing
transformation
is like saying the hole in the sand looks like the stick I made the
hole in the sand with. Holes in the sand and sticks are worlds apart.
So describing
transformation
this way would be telling you about a stick by describing the hole in
the sand (as
Werner Erhard may have
said).
All that said, lets talk about
transformation
(or at least one facet of it) as the realization that things are,
always have been, and always will be the way they are. And they
aren't, never have been, and never will be the way they aren't.
Furthermore, it's empty and meaningless that things are this way.
Moreover it's empty and meaningless that it's empty and
meaningless that things are this way. Making it mean
something that it's empty and meaningless is arrogance.
What's easy to get (which is to say what's easy to experience, given
this new paradigm) is the present is
OK the way it is
and it's OK the way it isn't - and please consider both of these to be
vastexperiential "OK"s. They're not
intended
as moral OKs. Neither are they
intended
as righteous OKs, and nor are they
intended
as ethical OKs - even if there may be some
intersection
and overlap with some or all of the above.
It's OK the way it is.
Stop lying about it.
Listen: there's
nothing
wrong
with the moral OKs nor with the righteous OKs nor with the ethical OKs
- however, this conversation isn't about them. The point I'm
making in this conversation is it's the
context
of
transformation
which lets experiencing the present be
OK the way it is
and OK the way it isn't.
Now, here's the corollary which is truly life-altering:
the present is
OK the way it is
and it's OK the way it isn't, and the present is all there is.
So (and if you would allow this to sink in, it's truly
miraculous)
the past ie whatever happened back then, is
alsoOK the way it is
and it's also OK the way it isn't - or, if you'd prefer saying it this
way, the past is also
OK the way it
was
and it's also OK the way it wasn't ... and ... the past
was also empty and meaningless, and it's empty and meaningless that the
past was empty and meaningless - even though I've only allowed the past
to be like this now ie in the present.