I Makes the Difference

"I" makes the difference. Holding onto differences is holding onto "I." "I" agrees with, "I" disagrees with. That's what is called an opinion. However camouflaged, however worded: "I think, I feel, I believe, It seems to me, that sounds right," all this charade of knowing keeps the "I" going, keeps the "I" searching. In fact, The seeker's search is the search for knowledge which the ego equates with Truth. "If I could have more knowledge, then I could have more Truth. If I could have more knowledge, I could have more control over my life." That is the equation.

But, knowing, like seeking, just keeps the "I" going. It feeds the illusion. It sustains the illusion of differences, of separateness, and the illusion that "I" can have real knowledge, or true control. Freedom is free of all of it. In fact, that is the freedom. It is free from the concern of having more knowledge. It is free from the need to control. It is free of the limited perspective of "I," and it is free of autonomy. Thus, it is free of drama, free of acting, and most importantly, free of the actor that says, "I know."

To the ego, who thinks it must know, who thinks it must choose, that it must take a stand, true freedom is terrifying. For the ego, distictions and differences are absolutely necessary. Without distinctions, it asks, "Where will I stand? What will be my boundaries? How will I stand apart from the rest?" This is the ego's greatest concern, what to be for and what to be against.

To be without any opinion, to be without any conclusion, to be without any stance, is to be free of "I' and 'my." From here, one opens to the awakened perspective, where nothing can be said above and beyond the obvious. "It is as it is." That's as philosophical as Awakened Presence gets. It does not share your opinions or beliefs. It does not remark: "oh, that's terrible," or that's great, or "that's too bad" or "that's acceptable or unacceptable." "It is as it is." Nothing more can or needs to be said.

It is out of this need to say more, to clarify, to distinguish that confusion arises. As a result, positions are established, agreed with and contradicted. All of this, is just a refuge for "I". All such confusions can be avoided, when we see what confusion is. Confusion is "I" attempting to know the unknowable. Frustration is "I" unable to know the unknowable, and suffering is "I" unable to understand the unknowable. As a result, it is labeled good, bad or unsatisfactory. What then is "I?" "I" is conditioning plus reasoning.

Conditioning plus reasoning, that's not so bad, right? Wrong. There are inherent flaws in all reasoning, The ego doesn't like to hear this, because it thinks itself a god. But, any truth the mind reasons to will be a dead truth, not a live one. It will not be the living Truth. Simply connecting one thought to another is not Oneness, Mind makes it's associations, but, it's every attempt to know Reality is a failed one. The mind's methods are divisive. It kills everything it touches.

Given all of this, it is no surprise that belief plays a major role in religion. With faith, with belief, one is able to give up this conundrum and this search. Clinging to any one of a dozen mythologies fills this space and satisfies "I." The "I" is then able to rest in the belief that it has the Truth, and this ends the search. "I know the truth. Therefore "I" am free. Or more pecisely, "I" knows the Truth and therefore it is free, but free of what? "I" is still "I." Ego still is. "I," "me," and "my" all remain. What kind of freedom is this?

It is freedom from search, but it is not realization. It is not direct experience of the Living Truth. The mind can, perhaps, rest, but everything is second hand. It is believed. It is adopted. It is told. At least, this is the beginning point. It is only a seed. This seed can grow. It can take root and become a fully mature tree, and it must. But, without direct experience, this can't happen. Just as a plant needs sunshine, one needs direct experience, otherwise, he or she will cling to beliefs, as though they were, of themselves, something of value, One would grow up a Christian tree, a Moslem tree, a Buddhist tree, a Hindu tree, a Taoist tree, and so on.

One get's an image of an orchard, of a vast garden where each tree maintains its autonomy and yet shares the same nature as the other. But the reality is ego's don't share. Instead, they form collective egos. "I" becomes "we," "me" becomes "us," and "mine" becomes "ours." In fact, very little changes. Still, there are boundaries. Still there are differences. Still there is controversy. Still there are enemies and friends. This is not the awakened perspective. This is not the Truth of Awakened Presence. Nothing has been broken through. Nothing has been seen. Things are modified, but the same.

Ego boundaries have relaxed, but they remain, and when resisted, they strengthen. They defend. They argue. They fight, each ensuring it's own survival. This is not freedom, and it is certainly not freedom from self. What then has been accomplished? This may sound bleak, but it is a fact. It is a fact that when threatened, "I" reasons, rationalizes and retaliates. It does not turn the other cheek. Turning the other cheek does not hold any interest for an ego. It's interests, as disguised as they may be, are always self-serving.

This is human nature, but it is not "original nature." "Original nature" is what you were before human interest took over. Freedom is freedom from "I." The ego with all of its identities, with all of its interests cannot know such a freedom. Were it to dissolve, like the salt doll who charges into the ocean, were it to turn around and face its source, this contradiction, and all contradictions would become paradoxes.