There's an enduring myth, a pitfall, a
slippery
slope associated with an age-old human endeavor. It's a pre-occupation
we assume (at least we assume initially, prior to close
scrutiny) we all have control / power over. In reality we have very
little control over it. It's analyzing ourselves: analyzing our state
of mind, analyzing the choices we've made, analyzing our actions etc
(such self-analyzing is sometimes referred to as "working on oneself").
The pitfall associated with self-analyzing, is the old pitfall
predicated on the myth ie the die-hard myth that "I
think" (which, for me to work on myself, is closely related
to "I analyze."). These days, anyone with even a most rudimentary
experience of the
work of transformation
knows the "I" in "I think" ie the "I" in "I analyze" isn't what it
appears to be - not even remotely. The "I" in "I think" ie the "I" in
"I analyze" isn't even real. It's a myth. It's just something
that
shows up
for us. If the "I" in "I analyze" is a myth then isn't "I analyze" a
myth too?
There are thoughts, yes - even better, there is thinking,
there is analyzing ... but I'm not the thinker (the die-hard myth is
we're the one thinking our thoughts ie we're the ones analyzing).
That's difficult medicine to swallow. So don't just accept it. Test it.
If you're certain it's you who are the thinker, then stop
thinking (spoiler alert: you can't). And if it's not you
who's doing the thinking ie if it's not you who's doing the analyzing,
then exactly who or what's doing it? Confront this for an opening: if
something automatic other than us is doing the analyzing, then assuming
"I analyze" (when analyzing is going on) is false - at best
misinformed, at worst misguided.
We have it that the purpose of analyzing ie of the myth of analyzing,
is it will get us into a pristine space in our relationship with
ourselves, with others, with
the world
- stated tersely, it will get us clear. But if we're not the
ones doing the analyzing in the first place, what's called for is a
workable way of realizing that clear space in our relationships with
the world
that deftly avoids being
trapped
in the paralysis of analysis - said another way, it calls
for
recontextualizing
(I
love
that
word)
analyzing.
What then, is the possibility of stopping analyzing? Given "I analyze"
is a myth, it appears there's no valid option for stopping
analyzing. Why so? Because stopping analyzing isn't an option if I'm
not the one doing it in the first place. Since I'm not the one doing
it anyway (it just goes on like
fingernails
growing), it would appear stopping analyzing (like turning off its
switch) isn't an available option. Yet there is one powerful option
available for stopping analyzing: it's to stop paying
attention
to it, to let the process be, to relinquish that I'm doing it in the
first place. Stopping analyzing (in the sense of stopping paying
attention
to it) is a transformed option. Indeed it turns out to be the only
available "stop" option that works. Without
attention
being paid to it, it effectively goes
quiet
as it fades away into the
background.
That's the really prudent way ie the smart way, the very
smart way to go about it. Then the analyzing stops ie it "stops" in the
sense that it no longer occupies
front and center
stage, in the sense that I'm no longer pre-occupied with it, again the
sense it fades into the
background
like elevator musak. We do what we do and we don't do what we
don't do. Reasons (even those gleaned from analyzing) have nothing to
do with
performance.
OK, question: what's left when the analyzing stops?
Acceptance.
Peace.
Calm. A new opening for possibility based on things simply being the
way they are and the way they aren't. A way of being with life that
doesn't require (ie get distracted by) understanding or explanation. A
place in which I stand and create newly, in which the future isn't
predicated on the past.
A world
in which I'm responsible for my life and all the choices I make. A
clear space in which I have the power to jettison
ways of being
that don't work, and invent new ones that do.