Work
Work
I hit the post reply button under "Nisagardatta Quote" instead of the new topic button. So the last entry under the Nisagrardatta button is about "Work." Please find my work discussion there. I apologize for this mistake. It's not my first, and it won't be my last when it comes to working on Internet programs. Bhakti
How do I work? Interesting ... I believe begrudgingly would be an accurate description.
As long as I can remember I have despised any work of any sort ... from childhood practicing of the piano to mowing the lawn ... although both brought nice payoffs. As an "adult", I still abhor exerting effort; although I partake in it because I enjoy a somewhat clean and tidy home, an immaculate automobile, and freshly ironed 100% cotton shirts (most of the time - sometimes I really don't care).
Somehow I have managed to get my "working for a living" to be perceived by myself as more of a "playing for a living", even though it requires exercising the intellect as well as countless hours of mundane activity. But the whole "playing" deal keeps me more likeable with my office buddies.
My favorite motto is never put off to tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. Procrastination rules.
So anyhow ... that's pretty much the way it goes.
All of that has nothing to do with living in Truth and direct realization of what I am ... although for a good long time I thought what I was "doing" really helped and/or hindered the search.
However, The Search is over as here is no one to search and no one to be found. And the three-in-one body of Michael (mental, physical, emotional) continues on its merry (or anguished) way to destruction. We shall see how it plays out.
I stand still, never move, never do anything ... especially work!
As long as I can remember I have despised any work of any sort ... from childhood practicing of the piano to mowing the lawn ... although both brought nice payoffs. As an "adult", I still abhor exerting effort; although I partake in it because I enjoy a somewhat clean and tidy home, an immaculate automobile, and freshly ironed 100% cotton shirts (most of the time - sometimes I really don't care).
Somehow I have managed to get my "working for a living" to be perceived by myself as more of a "playing for a living", even though it requires exercising the intellect as well as countless hours of mundane activity. But the whole "playing" deal keeps me more likeable with my office buddies.
My favorite motto is never put off to tomorrow what you can put off until the day after tomorrow. Procrastination rules.
So anyhow ... that's pretty much the way it goes.
All of that has nothing to do with living in Truth and direct realization of what I am ... although for a good long time I thought what I was "doing" really helped and/or hindered the search.
However, The Search is over as here is no one to search and no one to be found. And the three-in-one body of Michael (mental, physical, emotional) continues on its merry (or anguished) way to destruction. We shall see how it plays out.
I stand still, never move, never do anything ... especially work!
--Michael
From what you have said, Michael, I think of this body-mind life as work and what and how we surrender to the Universe (or whatever we choose to call our One Spirit) to create it. Vivekananda talks about the greatest work as that which is not prompted by selfish motives.
"If working like slaves results in selfishness and attachment, working as master of our own mind gives rise to the bliss of nonattachment. Although work is seldom sweet, it is only when love greases its wheels that it runs smoothly. It is continuous friction otherwise."
So whatever I’m working at each moment, I try to surrender to the One and ask that I do it with love in my heart without motives and without looking for results or outcomes. Very difficult at times, but that's when I do my humaness best to surrender. If I’m disappointed or frustrated in any way, I realize that I’m attached to the work and want the results to please the ego.
Blessings, Bhakti
"If working like slaves results in selfishness and attachment, working as master of our own mind gives rise to the bliss of nonattachment. Although work is seldom sweet, it is only when love greases its wheels that it runs smoothly. It is continuous friction otherwise."
So whatever I’m working at each moment, I try to surrender to the One and ask that I do it with love in my heart without motives and without looking for results or outcomes. Very difficult at times, but that's when I do my humaness best to surrender. If I’m disappointed or frustrated in any way, I realize that I’m attached to the work and want the results to please the ego.
Blessings, Bhakti
I see no difference between the "greatest work" as that which is not prompted by selfish motives and the "least work" as that which is prompted by selfish motives. Work is work. Whether I am disappointed or frustrated - or - pleased and enjoyed ... in "my" holding on or "my" surrendering in work ... it remains an egoic function.
Nothing wrong with the ego and its comings and goings, ups and downs, its smooth and frictioned experiences. Irrelevant. This particular ego is here to stay as long as this body appears - and it will do as it does, some of it enjoyed and some of it not.
If I am surrendering to the One and asking for favors ... how does that do anything but strengthen a perception (an identity) of separation? Isn't surrending to the One, desiring to live with love in my heart, without motives results outcomes the most egoic function of all? As a matter of fact ... its superior to being rich and powerful !!!
Ahh ... such tangled webs we weave.
Anyhow ... end point. I cannot use my ego to find out what I am.
Nothing wrong with the ego and its comings and goings, ups and downs, its smooth and frictioned experiences. Irrelevant. This particular ego is here to stay as long as this body appears - and it will do as it does, some of it enjoyed and some of it not.
If I am surrendering to the One and asking for favors ... how does that do anything but strengthen a perception (an identity) of separation? Isn't surrending to the One, desiring to live with love in my heart, without motives results outcomes the most egoic function of all? As a matter of fact ... its superior to being rich and powerful !!!
Ahh ... such tangled webs we weave.
Anyhow ... end point. I cannot use my ego to find out what I am.
--Michael
-
nothingness
- Posts: 2
- Joined: March 10th, 2005, 7:10 pm
mjoel53 wrote:I see no difference between the "greatest work" as that which is not prompted by selfish motives and the "least work" as that which is prompted by selfish motives. Work is work. Whether I am disappointed or frustrated - or - pleased and enjoyed ... in "my" holding on or "my" surrendering in work ... it remains an egoic function.
Nothing wrong with the ego and its comings and goings, ups and downs, its smooth and frictioned experiences. Irrelevant. This particular ego is here to stay as long as this body appears - and it will do as it does, some of it enjoyed and some of it not.
If I am surrendering to the One and asking for favors ... how does that do anything but strengthen a perception (an identity) of separation? Isn't surrending to the One, desiring to live with love in my heart, without motives results outcomes the most egoic function of all? As a matter of fact ... its superior to being rich and powerful !!!
Ahh ... such tangled webs we weave.
Anyhow ... end point. I cannot use my ego to find out what I am.
As you say " I cannot use my ego to find out what I am", is there inside of you an ego and apart from that an I of which the "I" has figured out he cannot use his ego to find out who or what he is ? That's pretty funny, if it is....
Taking a more serious note....... 
The key to getting through life's unpleasant parts is to simply accept them, and get through them. The struggle is not the unpleasant parts, but the RESISTANCE to the unpleasant parts. So Bhakti makes a good point, and that is, surrender is the key to all of it. We don't get anywhere because we truly don't want to get anywhere, whatever that anywhere might be. Or, another way of saying it is that we want something else, and we will get something else. This applies to EVERYTHING in life, not just "spiritual stuff". The mind is so busy figuring things out, wanting this instead of that, longing for something the mind has conceptualized, that we don't just LIVE life as it occurs to us, we don't accept it, we don't surrender to it. We are power freaks, and we think power lies in concepts we empower with power!
Or as one of my favorite diabolical teachers, known as Da Free John, aka Da Kalki, aka Bubba Free Joh, aka Ad Infinitum,
might have put it "We live in or as a clenched fist".
We don't flow because we resist life constantly. And of course, the reason we resist life constantly, is because we have been conditioned to, and we permit our conditioning to drive us constantly.
The key to getting through life's unpleasant parts is to simply accept them, and get through them. The struggle is not the unpleasant parts, but the RESISTANCE to the unpleasant parts. So Bhakti makes a good point, and that is, surrender is the key to all of it. We don't get anywhere because we truly don't want to get anywhere, whatever that anywhere might be. Or, another way of saying it is that we want something else, and we will get something else. This applies to EVERYTHING in life, not just "spiritual stuff". The mind is so busy figuring things out, wanting this instead of that, longing for something the mind has conceptualized, that we don't just LIVE life as it occurs to us, we don't accept it, we don't surrender to it. We are power freaks, and we think power lies in concepts we empower with power!
Or as one of my favorite diabolical teachers, known as Da Free John, aka Da Kalki, aka Bubba Free Joh, aka Ad Infinitum,
might have put it "We live in or as a clenched fist". We don't flow because we resist life constantly. And of course, the reason we resist life constantly, is because we have been conditioned to, and we permit our conditioning to drive us constantly.
Michael said: "If I am surrendering to the One and asking for favors ... how does that do anything but strengthen a perception (an identity) of separation? Isn't surrending to the One, desiring to live with love in my heart, without motives results outcomes the most egoic function of all? As a matter of fact ... its superior to being rich and powerful !!!
Ahh ... such tangled webs we weave.
Anyhow ... end point. I cannot use my ego to find out what I am."
I thought about what Michael has said and I disagree with his comments on "asking for favors" and on the egoic function. If we don't ask the One for the favor of surrendering, how can we ever do it? And if it's not the ego that surrenders, what else does? I do agree that the ego can't unfold who we are. I know who I am even if I forget a million times a day or more. And the ego is part of the One as well.
I agree with Nancy: It's resistance on every level, whatever you want to call it, be this resistance an ego function or not. Resistance is the rub, as Hamlet would say. Blessings, Bhakti
Ahh ... such tangled webs we weave.
Anyhow ... end point. I cannot use my ego to find out what I am."
I thought about what Michael has said and I disagree with his comments on "asking for favors" and on the egoic function. If we don't ask the One for the favor of surrendering, how can we ever do it? And if it's not the ego that surrenders, what else does? I do agree that the ego can't unfold who we are. I know who I am even if I forget a million times a day or more. And the ego is part of the One as well.
I agree with Nancy: It's resistance on every level, whatever you want to call it, be this resistance an ego function or not. Resistance is the rub, as Hamlet would say. Blessings, Bhakti
It occurs to me that part of what may be at work here is the tendency to distinguish between “me” and “my life” or “me” and “my work”, as if they were two different things, as if there were a “me” who is living “my life” or performing “my work”.
Actually, “me” and “my life” (or “my work”) are one and the same thing, aren’t they? Surely, they are indistinguishable? I mean, I can’t separate “me” onto one side of the room and “my life” on the other, and then measure each. “Me” without “my life” is meaningless, and so is “my life” without “me”. And the same is true of “my work”, which, after all, is just “my life” at “the office” or on “the assembly line” or whatever.
And isn’t the same essentially true of the “ego”? Isn’t the ego simply an aspect of what I call “me” which is the same as “my life”? I may say that the “ego” is the source of all my woes, that it is what gets “me” into trouble, but does that really parse? I mean, where is the line of demarcation between what I call “me” and what I call “my ego”?
As long as we are perceiving inside the boundaries of the dual universe (“I am me, and you are you”), I’m not sure any of these separations between and among “me”, “my life”, “my work”, and “my ego” work. They are all different names for the same thing, I think.
If any of that makes sense, then surrender is simply an acceptance of it, a willingness to stop thinking of "my self” as separate and distinct from (not to mention better than) “my life”. If I can do that, I then realize that if I am unhappy with some aspect of “my life”, all I need to do is change some aspect of “me”, and that change will immediately be reflected in (as) “my life”.
As I understand the physics of holography, I think that’s the way a hologram works: Every part reflects or contains the whole entirely, and so if any part is altered, the whole immediately reflects the change.
An advantage to this perspective may be that it helps to alleviate struggle. As long as we think of “me” and “my life” or “my work” or “my ego” as being separate, distinct “things”, then it is quite natural and logical to suppose that if we don’t like “my life” or “my work” or “my ego”, we should struggle against it until we overcome it in some way. It is inherently confrontational, and so struggle-inducing. But by eliminating the sense of separation between “me” and “my life”, and recognizing that to change “my life” I need only change “me” (I say “only” not to suggest that it is easy, but rather to say that the appropriate object is clear and near at hand), perhaps the adversity involved in the idea of struggle is released a little. Then, it's not that we are struggling against some "outside force" so much as we are altering or dropping old habits or revising existing perceptions and the like. Again, none of that is easy, but at least it is simpler than taking on "the world".
Another advantage for me of this perspective is that it facilitates, as Bhakti mentions, a recognition that it is all Divine. Thus, for example, here the “ego” is not separated out from Creation as being something other than God or God-ly, which (again, for me) just doesn’t work if God the One (JHVH or Allah or Satchidananda and so on) is Infinite.
A disadvantage, of course, is that it eliminates the scapegoat. We can't blame "my life" on some other person or force; we can't whine, "the devil made me do it". We need to recognize and acknowledge that, as Harry Truman used to say, the buck stops here.
A personal postscript: My own sense is that if we can bring ourselves to say -- consistently with conviction, enthusiasm, and earnestness -- "I love my life", then our life will reflect that reality, and become lovable. I know, it sounds corny, even silly, but there it is.
In a word, here it is, from the wondrous Vivekananda: A man [or a woman] who does not believe in himself [or herself] is an atheist.
Actually, “me” and “my life” (or “my work”) are one and the same thing, aren’t they? Surely, they are indistinguishable? I mean, I can’t separate “me” onto one side of the room and “my life” on the other, and then measure each. “Me” without “my life” is meaningless, and so is “my life” without “me”. And the same is true of “my work”, which, after all, is just “my life” at “the office” or on “the assembly line” or whatever.
And isn’t the same essentially true of the “ego”? Isn’t the ego simply an aspect of what I call “me” which is the same as “my life”? I may say that the “ego” is the source of all my woes, that it is what gets “me” into trouble, but does that really parse? I mean, where is the line of demarcation between what I call “me” and what I call “my ego”?
As long as we are perceiving inside the boundaries of the dual universe (“I am me, and you are you”), I’m not sure any of these separations between and among “me”, “my life”, “my work”, and “my ego” work. They are all different names for the same thing, I think.
If any of that makes sense, then surrender is simply an acceptance of it, a willingness to stop thinking of "my self” as separate and distinct from (not to mention better than) “my life”. If I can do that, I then realize that if I am unhappy with some aspect of “my life”, all I need to do is change some aspect of “me”, and that change will immediately be reflected in (as) “my life”.
As I understand the physics of holography, I think that’s the way a hologram works: Every part reflects or contains the whole entirely, and so if any part is altered, the whole immediately reflects the change.
An advantage to this perspective may be that it helps to alleviate struggle. As long as we think of “me” and “my life” or “my work” or “my ego” as being separate, distinct “things”, then it is quite natural and logical to suppose that if we don’t like “my life” or “my work” or “my ego”, we should struggle against it until we overcome it in some way. It is inherently confrontational, and so struggle-inducing. But by eliminating the sense of separation between “me” and “my life”, and recognizing that to change “my life” I need only change “me” (I say “only” not to suggest that it is easy, but rather to say that the appropriate object is clear and near at hand), perhaps the adversity involved in the idea of struggle is released a little. Then, it's not that we are struggling against some "outside force" so much as we are altering or dropping old habits or revising existing perceptions and the like. Again, none of that is easy, but at least it is simpler than taking on "the world".
Another advantage for me of this perspective is that it facilitates, as Bhakti mentions, a recognition that it is all Divine. Thus, for example, here the “ego” is not separated out from Creation as being something other than God or God-ly, which (again, for me) just doesn’t work if God the One (JHVH or Allah or Satchidananda and so on) is Infinite.
A disadvantage, of course, is that it eliminates the scapegoat. We can't blame "my life" on some other person or force; we can't whine, "the devil made me do it". We need to recognize and acknowledge that, as Harry Truman used to say, the buck stops here.
A personal postscript: My own sense is that if we can bring ourselves to say -- consistently with conviction, enthusiasm, and earnestness -- "I love my life", then our life will reflect that reality, and become lovable. I know, it sounds corny, even silly, but there it is.
In a word, here it is, from the wondrous Vivekananda: A man [or a woman] who does not believe in himself [or herself] is an atheist.