07. A Fork in the Road

It has been a strange adventure, so far.  We have sniffed at and tasted elements of what is normally considered to reside in the domain of philosophy, science, spirituality, or ancient traditions.  But we have done so by jumping around in radical ways, without trying to follow any particular path, old or new.  And we have made unusual connections, like using the working hypothesis method of science to study aspects of timeless time, which has no place yet in any form of science that has been developed so far.

And we could easily go on, for the rest of our lives.  There is so much to explore!  So many valuable traditions are now available to us, so much wonder has been uncovered already by current science, and so many fascinating ideas are sprouting up every day about how to combine some of the wisdom of ancient traditions with the practicality of everyday life in the modern world.

Yet we have another option.  An even more radical option, in fact a far more radical one.

And for sure, talking about timeless time and a way of life that goes beyond the subject/object split is already pretty radical.  Going beyond talking and actually exploring those notions is even more radical.  That's precisely what we've been doing so far.  But it's not the most radical option, not by a long shot.

We have now approached a fork in the road.  And I could easily see this book, too, splitting into two different paths.  Let me sketch each one.

7.1. A Radical Integration

We could continue in the same vein as we have so far.  And that would be a lot of fun!  It would be very interesting to write more, to experiment futher, to discuss and share with others the many implications that present themselves of what we've already done so far.  And yes, it's really tempting to do so. In fact, for most of my life I have envisioned that to be my calling, so to speak.  It was that what I thought made me tick: to somehow find ways to bridge opposing ways of looking at the world, call it science vs. religion, materialism vs. idealism, modern empiricism vs. ancient wisdom, etc.

For the last forty years I've had various intuitions as to how to proceed on such a path of radical integration.  And over time, I've learned to find words and ideas that may make such an enterprise possible.  The chapters of this book, up to this point, are my current best attempt.  The term `integration' points to the need for a way of going beyond all distinctions, all dualities.  And the term `radical' points to the need to radically drop all of our received notions that still buy into forms of duality.

The model of linear time, for example, is not radical enough; nor is the model of subject-object interactions.  Yet the world as we know it, and as we normally experience it, seems to be build so firmly on those two foundations that it seems we have nothing left if we were to give up those foundations.  That's where the radical aspect of such a move comes in.  We have tried to get a taste of what it could be like to go beyond such dualistic notions.  And most likely, some of the explorations have already given you a sense of how radical such a move can be.

Even so, we have continued to think and talk in terms of us doing the explorations.  And we can't help it: our language, our whole way of thinking, all that is given in terms of linear time.  So when we talk, we are forced to talk in terms of relatively isolated subjects who are struggling to make sense of their world, while reaching out toward other subjects, trying to share their struggles.

So even the most radical attempt at an integration is bound to start with linear time and subject/object interactions as basic ingredients.  The best we could hope for in such an exploration is that somehow, the longer we work on it, the more the illusions of linear time and of isolated subjects will drop away -- perhaps in the way ripe fruit may drop from a tree.  And who knows, it really may be the best we could hope for. There may be no other way.

7.2. As It Is

Or there may be.  What would be the alternative?  How can we avoid trying, reaching; how can we avoid any form of xxxx-ing, including exploring?  Without a subject-me and without time in which to reach a goal, what is there to do, and when is there to do?  Nothing and never.

So what is left?  Nothing, it would seem, at least nothing within the usual frameworks in which we think, act, live.

Yet there is.

There is what is as it is.

We have tried to point to that `is', from within the clumsy way of using words and language, through the word `presence'.

Without buying into the meanings of words like subject and object, or past, present, and future, without accepting any of that as having any real meaning, there is still the presence of appearance.

Whether appearance appears is another question.  Appearing is another xxxx-ing word that in subtle ways appeals to time as we know it.  Arising is no different.

So what could the other fork in the road amount too?   With timeless time comes nonarising arising, and nonappearing appearance.  Anything drops away.  All that is left is what is.  As it is.

7.3. The Big Lie

The remainder of this book will focus on the second choice, at the second fork in the road, the As It Is choice.

Why?  I could give many answers, none of which really cover the whole picture.  I could argue that it may be the ultimate short-cut, or the ultimate most radical approach, or the one that corresponds most closely to reality.  But I would be hard put to make an argument, since what would such an argument be based on?

Let me just mention one reason, for myself, for not further pursuing the `radical integration' fork of the road.  And let me stress right away that it is a personal reason: I would never try to convince others that one fork is better than another.  In fact, both forks are probably far too radical for general consumption, and I highly appreciate the efficacy of the many less radical paths that are presented squarely in terms of linear time and subject/object relationships. Clearly, all those paths can be useful in many ways.

However, for those interested in more radical paths, and able to make at least some sense of how to work with them, I'm happy to share my own explorations and learn from those of others at the same time.

For me, personally, what I don't like about all those other paths, even the `radical integration' path, is that they deal in terms of what I like to call the "Big Lie".

To work with linear time, reading chapters, doing explorations, sharing reports, with the promise of somehow being able to rise beyond time, into some mysterious something called timeless time is a Big Lie.

It's just impossible.  You can't get there from here.

So either the there (timeless time) is out of reach, or you're not really here, where you thought you were, and instead you're there already.  Either way, there is nothing to reach, to explore, to find, to check, to investigate in any way.

Education seems to trade in terms of Big Lies all the time.  In high school we learn classical physics, describing atoms and molecules as pieces of a clockwork mechanism, leaving the deeper truth of quantum mechanics for those few continuing in physics in college.  In spiritual approaches God(s) and saints and boddhisattvas are introduced at first as something to try to reach out to, only to find in the end that they are not outside you.

On all levels, education tends to trade in terms of Big Lies.  And who am I to say that that is not the best approach? It may be the most effective.  But I rebel at taking part in such a Big Lie, especially in what's most near and dear to me: the nature of ultimate reality.

7.4. A Compromise

Yet, if I don't like the first fork, since I don't consider it to be honest, and if I can't get anywhere with the second fork, what is there left?  Stuck is an understatement here . . .

It seems that there is a need for a compromise.  If we don't take the fork in the road called `radical integration', is there any way that we can pretend-take the other fork, in some way?  Is there a playful way to do "as if" we enter the other fork, without really entering anything, and while from the beginning acknowledging that we resolutely refuse to engage in any Big Lie?

In other words, if we choose the "As It Is" fork, would it make sense to play as if "Is" presents to us a road to walk on?

The only way in which that would make sense is for "Is" to walk the "Is" road in its own "Is" way, without invoking anything outside "Is" -- without invoking a progression in time, without invoking a subject that is somehow progressing along the road.

It's a bit cumbersome to keep writing "Is" even though it's a bit more precise than "what Is" or "as it Is" since just the word "Is" stresses the fact that there is nothing else outside "Is".  However, for the sake of respecting the rules of the English language, it may be better to use the word "Being" instead of "Is".

As long as it is clear that we don't use "Is" like a verb (to the exclusion of a noun aspect and other aspects) and we don't use "Being" like a noun (to the exclusion of a verb aspect and other aspects), it's okay to use either term.

Therefore, let us pick a shorthand version of the approach of the second fork that doesn't sound too confusing.  Instead of "exploring the As It Is non-path path in a non-exploring way" let us simply use the word "Being", and let us stress the playful way in which we dare to make some compromises in order to get started.

In short, lets call the approach of the second fork "Play as Being".

7.5. Play as Being

Here is the compromise.  Instead of pretending that we can somehow find/reach/realize timeless time, we accept that there is no way to "get" it, and . . . we decide that from now on we're not going to try anymore!  Well, let's not go so fast. There really is no need to pledge to never try anymore.  You could spend just, say, five minutes not trying to reach anything.  After all, we are now involved in a play, not in anything heavyhanded like making pledges or promises.

So, let us take a relatively short amount of time.  Five minutes may be a good start.  For about five minutes, let's just play as Being.

If you don't know how to `play as Being', that's perfectly fine!  Playing doesn't necessarily involve knowing all the details of a play.  You can just jump in.  The reason that animals play is not to perform something they already know; it is exactly in order to learn to play.  Let's be like little animals, and just play -- as Being.

At the start of the five minutes, quickly bring to mind all that we have discussed in the previous chapters, all those goodies called sheer appearance, self-arising awareness, timeless time, appreciating the presence of appearance.  And instead of seeing all those as things that would be nice to realize, consider instead the alternative: that all of it is there already, fully available, part of what Is.  And you, too, are part of what Is.

In short, you are now playing as Being.  You are playing as if nothing is missing.  What is more, you are playing as if nothing has ever been missing, in anyway.

True or false?  That's not the point.  Just play.  If it's only a pretend-play, that's fine.  Again, part of the compromise is that we decided we just start somewhere.

How does it feel, for five minutes, to drop the load off your shoulders, the life-long load of having to reach something?  Without any lingering sense of having to realize this or that, can you just `play as Being'?  Can you drop remorse, regret, aspirations, wishes, in short any form of hope or fear, trading that all in for just `playing as Being?'

Well, of course you can.  We can all pretend anything.  So let's do it, for five minutes, and see what happens!