I am indebted to The Chief who inspired this conversation.
When I stand alone, when I stand by ... my ... Self, what's the
yardstick, what's the validation, what's the authentication
which makes any choice the choice to make, which
makes any direction the direction to take, which
makes any action the action to take? What's the
litmus test by which I can determine whatever I choose
which results in whatever it results in is the
optimal result, the appropriate result, the outcome flush
with and
congruent
withworkability
over the widest possible area?
Is there something against which I can measure that which I choose to
be not only optimal, not only appropriate, not only
workable
for me but also optimal, appropriate, and
workable
comprehensively ie inclusive of anyone and everyone and all things
within the total domain and dominion of the results of my choices and
of my actions?
Indeed, projecting further, is it even possible for me to
make choices with all that in mind? Indeed, if it's
possible, against what background would or could such
choices be made? By what yardstick could they be pre-measured? By what
litmus test could they be validated? Or, as one solitary
human being, is it only possible for me to make choices for
myself which then by default impact those around me and all
of my surroundings but without me having any immediate mastery over the
scope of their impact on those around me and on all of my surroundings?
What if it were possible? Furthermore, if it
were possible, how would I know what to choose given all
the myriads of choices available? How would I know, how
could I know if any particular choice would deliver all
that? By what yardstick, by what litmus test
would I know it?
If there were such a yardstick, if there were such a litmus
test, what would it look like? What would it feel
like? Indeed, would it feel like anything in particular? Would it be
the result of a pre-set list of questions which would check possible
results of my actions before they were implemented, and which would
render them plausible if a certain percentile of their answers were
favorable? Perhaps it's simply not possible to know ahead
of time how my actions are going to impact anyone and everyone and all
things within the domain of my choices. If it's not possible to know
ahead of time, I must proceed anyway wishing and hoping
whatever I do has a benign forwarding impact. Yet I'll
never be certain it will until after the fact - in which case, I'll
proceed anyway: not knowing the results ahead of time is
no grounds for standing still.
Before I respond to an argument, before I turn to face an
attack, what's the measure, what's the litmus test of
the efficacy of my response? Before I make a decision, for example,
about where to apply my energy, about the areas in which I'll work,
about what projects I'll take on, what's the measure, what's the
litmus test of whether it's something I'll wholeheartedly,
unreservedly give myself to? Before I accept invitations to participate
in new endeavors, before I add new conversations to my repertoire,
what's the measure, what's the litmus test of whether or
not they'll compromise my integrity, of whether or not I'll commit
myself to something I can't (or, worse, don't want to)
deliver my promise to?
I'd like to propose there is such a yardstick. There is such a
litmus test. I assert the yardstick, the litmus
test is "presence of Self" like a possibility. Here's
my proposal:
If what I choose ie whatever I choose results in an
expanded sense of presence of Self then I'll choose it.
That's what's likely to work broadly across all impact zones in my life
and for all people in all impact zones in my life. If what I choose ie
whatever I choose results in a diminished sense of
presence of Self then I'll
eschew
it.
If what I do ie whatever I do results in an expanded sense
of presence of Self then I'll do it. That's what's likely
to work broadly across all impact zones in my life and for all people
in all impact zones in my life. If what I do ie whatever
I do results in a diminished sense of presence of Self
then I'll not do it.
If what I speak ie whatever I speak results in an expanded
sense of presence of Self then I'll speak it. That's
what's likely to work broadly across all impact zones in my life and
for all people in all impact zones in my life. If what I speak ie
whatever I speak results in a diminished sense of
presence of Self then I'll not speak it.
Although I'm speaking the litmus test for any choice as
whatever it is which results in an expanded sense of presence of Self,
in actuality the litmus test for any choice is whatever it
is which doesn't result in a
diminished sense of presence of Self. Often, in
both mathematics as well as in
Zen,
it's the double negative which defines the positive.
What's critical here is to distinguish what presence of Self is
not. Presence of Self isn't
ego.
While it may be appropriate, relevant, even useful from
time to time to choose, act, and speak in synch with that which
furthers my own point of view ie to choose, act, and speak
in synch with my
ego,
ego
isn't what I'm distinguishing as presence of Self.
Neither is presence of Self what I call
"I".
While it may be appropriate, relevant, even useful from
time to time to choose, act, and speak in synch with that which
furthers whatever it is I consider myself to be ie to
choose, act, and speak in synch with that which I call
"I",
"I"
isn't what I'm distinguishing as presence of Self.
I'm distinguishing presence of Self as
naked presence,
as a
clearing,
as a joyous opening for possibility, as a
context which allows all of it to show up
including my
ego,
including that which I call
"I"
yet neither limited to them nor defined by them ie
particularly not defined by them. Presence of Self in its
bold, manifest form is really taking a stand for presence of
Self. For human beings it's quite literally the possibility of
being being. That said, my thesis is this:
When faced with a choice, whatever the choice is which results in an
expanded sense of presence of Self over and beyond that
which is specifically chosen, that's the choice
I'll make. When faced with an action, whatever the action is which
results in an expanded sense of presence of Self over and
beyond that which is specifically actioned,
that's the action I'll take. When faced with what
to speak, whatever the language is which results in an expanded sense
of presence of Self over and beyond that which is
specifically spoken, that's what I'll speak.
Conversely a resulting diminished sense of presence of Self is the
litmus test of what to
eschew.
This is the litmus test which works in any situation.
Standing for presence of Self doesn't provide
the answers.
Neither does it ensure being right. Rather what it ensures is a
certain authenticity in choice, action, and speech. It
positions me at the start of a future based on a
foundation on which I'm willing to stand, for which I'm willing
to be a stand. Standing for presence of Self
doesn't guarantee I'll win or be right. The results
of standing for presence of Self are simply the results
of standing for presence of Self. All that's guaranteed is the
authenticity of my choices, actions, and words. Standing for presence
of Self in an attempt to improve one's chances of winning, to underline
being right or dominant, or to ensure one's survival is a
classic case of being unclear on the concept. What I'm speaking
about here is a far, far cry from the world of manipulatability.
You can't manipulate presence of Self to your advantage, and neither
can you use it to trumpet your own agenda. It's simply
what's so.
The results, the outcomes when standing for presence of Self will be
whatever the results and outcomes will be when standing
for presence of Self - just as surely as the results, the outcomes will
be whatever the results and outcomes will be when
not standing for presence of Self. The subtle distinction
for me is when I'm coming from presence of Self, I can be responsible
for any results and outcomes. And if there's any
blueprint at all for the life I want to live, living a
life in which I can be responsible for any results and
outcomes of my choices, actions, and speaking is the life I want to
live.
It's more than that, actually. For me, there's no other life even
worth living. And, when the truth is told, it's even more
than that also. For me, there's no ... other
... life. Period. Anything and everything else is simply a
reasonable facsimile of ie no more than a close
approximation to what's available, to what's really possible.