Choiceless awareness. Think about this. It means not making a decision. It also means there is no control of deciding. What do we usually decide about. There are all the day to day decisions, like getting out of bed in the morning. Is that really a decision? Is a compulsion a decision? There is the suggestion of decision making in our ordinary political and social lives. We are told it is up to you: You must decide for yourself: If you don't decide you will miss out: You made the wrong decision: The decision was based on the available information. There is a great deal of decision making in all aspects of the society. These affect us. If we dissent we are told that it is your decision to not comply. So we are outcast, unlawful. On the other hand we can simply decide to opt in. Decision seems to mean accepting, complying, agreeing. The word is used as a term of authority. It divides, the wielder and the subject, and puts you separate, not included in the situation. Fearful, you are asked to choose between inclusion and exclusion, safety and danger, satisfaction and hunger.

Sitting, listening there is the centre. But listening there is the sounds outside. Listen to the sounds. Notice how they apparently come from outside and are heard at the center. But think, sound is a wave beginning at a source and travels over you. You don't actually hear it from a centre, but really simply experience it as it passes over you. You see, you are merely one point of experience amongst many in an environment, the world. Now from that point expand your ground. That is, rather than a point it is a sphere of experience. For example, think of your whole body, and not just your centre of perception. The sound come from some source and as a wave travel over your body which you sense. Then there are all your other senses, temperature, a breeze, feelings. Watch as they, travel over and through you, passing, coming and going. Not belonging to you, not emanating from you, and not focused in some central perception. Any way, you might want to try it as meditation. Of course you as the sitter are still there listening. For me it was a strong experience of understanding what place I, ego, has in my real existence.

An ideal constantly requires attention, energy.

I heard an Army Chaplin saying that if someone wants to be a conscientious objector they should seriously consider choosing a career other than in the armed forces. This is not a joke. We do try to make compromises. We want to live in society. But we can't always fit in. The non-drinker, non-smoker, non-gambler, vegetarian, single parent, can attest to that. But also the drunk, cancer ridden, over weight, stressed and depressed are equally reacting. So what is our position in society? Can you get a job, pay the rent, buy food and clothing, without being an average, typical person. As an average person though you too question social values and try to live life earnestly. How do we cope with corruption, competiveness, aggression, violence? We think these are psychological problems and can be dealt with by the mind. Are the difficulties living in society only about conformity, obedience, obligation? Of course we want to belong, to live harmoniously, to be contributing. This is what we can do in society, theoretically. The question is, what is society? Is it everyone making compromises? Should we find what we are happy doing, what makes us content. Then are we all to find our true selves outside of our what we have formed by our relationships? Is it the hard fact that happy and content is to be independent, self resourceful, unaffiliated? This is the contradiction of an idealised society.

Actually there are traditions of going into the wilderness to find one self. But what ever our beliefs, even if we think we are independent, self sufficient, the day to day interactions constitute a society. The question is how do we act morally, honestly, truthfully, when the truth is said to be not about our relationships, and what we do together, but only an idea, an opinion, a belief. It can be said there are realities of war, as there are realities of conscience. So we have not one society, one fraternity, one humanity, but a fragmentation, where all is right for each part. It is said all will be right when you find and subscribe to that part. That kind of right is totalitarian. It is exclusive, not inclusive. It is a truth forever projected, ideal, and so is impossible, speculative, impractical, dishonest, unreal, unsustainable.

Worthless responsibility.

Walking in the park there is the beauty of the trees and the birds singing. We can see all this without the mediation of I, ego. The beauty is there. There is no need for the self centered perspective we call I. What then is I doing there? Why does I persist? We can be aware of all the terrible things in the world, war, famine, cruelty, hatred, corruption, but it is never our responsibility. How can we think of I as not involved in the world as it is, but only as the observer? I is part of the world and it is responsible for interceding in the humanity. We say we accept responsibility. Then why isn't the awareness of all the terrible things in the world for which we are responsible, enough to ward off I? In the face of all the facts, why isn't I dispelled and no longer entertained? I is so ingrained in the mind that even in quietness, in meditation, in spiritual awareness, it does not subside. Self awareness does not change this. What is it that would acknowledge the part I has in the world, that knows in fact it is the source of disorder, hate, violence, want to change and to change the world, but tolerate, maintain that part. There is only one thing that can do that and that is love, but it is not a spiritual love, but a self-love. It is not love at all, but an abuse.

I think about these matters. As we all do. It is not divine. So we are asking is there the thinking that is not conditioned. Even now, thinking about what to write, I am faced with many, many responses. These I see, leading down many certain paths, are not useful. This is the action of the writer, the author. Even if I were to believe my response is spontaneous there is the structure of thought, the processes and habits of the mind. With observation, of the science, the thinking , the mind, am I addressing the question of conditioning? If I were to chatter away , discussing all this, then I am not. It is just more of the self. What if I am listening and I hear the thinking as a voice, in real time. Is this crazy? I am not correcting, altering, restraining, reacting. I listen freely and openly. The thinking runs its course. The content is shown. Then the continuity of automatic thought is seen and the seeing is an insight. Still I am using words to talk about this. Can we trust the insight to be valid? OK, so now we are in the continuity of thought. Insight is just seeing.