It wasn't the way we were brought up. There were no prescribed
textbooks about it for us to read. No, I'm not
pointing a finger.
Nobody's to blame for it. It just wasn't included in the methods of
raising children or schooling them back then. Back then, there was
no possibility of "being enough" ie no one spoke it. Now
ie these days when I look at life the way it presents itself to me to
live it, I see there's a real possibility of being enough. That came at
me
out of the blue.
I got it not from studying but from an einsicht ie from an
"A-Ha!" experience.
Simply being alive is
enough.
The only thing there is to do
is be.
It's an astonishing
proposition,
stunning in its implications. When we were raised and schooled, what
nobody taught us was that there's nothing we need to acquire to be
enough, there's nothing we need to justify to be enough, there's
nothing we need to attain to be enough, there's nothing we need to
achieve to be enough, there's nothing we need to qualify for to be
enough, we didn't need to make it to be enough. Be clear,
the possibility of being enough was open to being invented
when I was a child. But it simply wasn't - so I didn't get it until
much, much later. In those days I didn't have
my attention
on it, so I never related to it as if it was in the realm of
possibility - in addition, it wasn't included in the curricula I
participated in. It was the gorilla not in the room.
What is it when it isn't enough? For starters, it's the
antithesis of when it is enough. When I'm just being ...
I'm being who I am (if you prefer, I'm being what I am).
When I'm just being, who I am is fully congruent with that I'm
being, the experience of which is: it is enough - it is I'm full,
whole, complete,
in integrity,
wanting for nothing. When who I am isn't enough, the experience of it
is: I'm not full and /
or not whole and / or not
complete
and / or not
in integrity
and / or wanting ie needy. Look: this is a
graduate
conversation, and what it comes down to is when I'm being who I am, it
is enough, and when I'm not being who I am ie when I'm being who I'm
not, it isn't enough. When I'm being who I am, it
goeswith (as
Alan Watts
may have said) it is enough / full,
whole, complete,
in integrity,
wanting for nothing. And then when I'm not being who I am ie when I'm
being who I'm not, it goeswith it isn't enough.
When who I am isn't enough, I notice I'm prone to get impatient with
people. I'll accuse, find fault. When who I am isn't enough, I notice
I'm not satisfied. And it doesn't matter what I do or try
to do to be satisfied: nothing works. When who I am isn't enough, I
notice I'm less confident. When who I am isn't enough, I notice I
deplete my energy faster (I get tired easier). When who I am isn't
enough, I notice I'm more wrapped up in
my own ego
(I'm stuck, and desperately complaining to
the voice in my head
about how I can't
fix
myself). When who I am isn't enough, I notice I'm less accepting of
life the way it is (it's my kind of truculent
resistance
to being dominated by life). When who I am isn't enough, there's no
love
in
my life
- for which I'll blame other people.
This thing about when it is enough and when it isn't enough? It
is enough ... until I notice it isn't enough ... then I
can reclaim it as enough again. Then it is enough again ... until I
notice it isn't enough ... and then I can reclaim it as enough again
etc etc. It comes ... and it goes ... and then it comes again etc etc.
Actually it is always enough, and what comes and goes is
my recognition that it is enough. That's what there is to reclaim.
What's missing when it isn't enough, is simply the recognition that it
is enough. As for what to do for it to be enough,
simply being alive is
enough.
The only thing you have to do
is be.
