In the last post on meditation, I talked a little bit about an analogy of a field of clay and potential shapes that arise within that field.
This analogy can be understood as a finger pointing to the very field of awareness that is us. The elaborate world that we inhabit, think, and feel are akin to the shapes of that field and the constant fluid that is awareness itself is like the substance of that field. The shapes and substance are one.
We hear sometimes these little spiritual snippets of wisdom such as "be in the now", or "discover yourself", or "find yourself", or are given various techniques for somehow shifting from our current state to another. These directions imply a duality that somehow we are separate from the field that we are. Nevertheless, sometimes we identify with name and form in such a way that we feel polarized from ourselves and our fundamental condition.
If we do take the route that suggests that something actually shifts, that somehow our focus transforms or shifts its identification, what then does it really mean to shift states or to go from one state of awareness to another? If we realize that the shapes of the clay are actually clay, does it now mean that there are no shapes? Are the shapes somehow less than they were before? Do we actually seek to somehow unmake the shapes in order that we might realize clay's nature?
In attending less to something's shape, and focusing more on its substance, what is it that actually shifts? Is it the shifting of one shape to another? Or is recognizing substance of an entirely different level of understanding?
If we come back to the analogy of the field of clay and the various shapes that arise from it, we might see that the substance itself is not a shape. It is that very thing that gives rise to shapes to begin with. It is that very thing that shapes dissolve back into.
From this standpoint, we might be tempted to say substance isn't seen, it is that which sees. We might be tempted to also say substance isn't felt, it is that which feels. The same goes for the other awareness avenues that we call the senses.
This is all true from a certain perspective...
But what if it is also true that substance is both that which sees and that which is seen? And also true that substance is both that which is felt and that which feels?
Taking this latter perspective, we are uniting our experience as noun and verb simultaneously. There is no separation.
I struggled for many years, and honestly still do sometimes, with this idea of being an imperfect being, of needing to attain this or that, or get rid of this or that, in order to become more fully perfect, enlightened, awake, better, a more spiritual being, blah blah blah...
This attitude however is akin to just trading one shape for another. "I prefer the shape of the holy one wearing white on a mountain top to the shape of this heaping crying mess on the floor," for example. Truly funny when you think about it. The substance has no judgements. I am not so sure that the substance even has a plan. Plans are shapes. The field is infinite in its potential.
Starting from the substance, any shape is possible. Substance is like space, unlimited and unimpeded. In fact there is no need to hold to the shape that says that we must hold to the substance in order to be free even. What? But what about liberation? What is liberation from form but a shape though? Perhaps liberation is the relaxing of identification with shape? Is this a shape too? Who is liberated? Perhaps this shape of liberation is spontaneous and continuous, moment to moment, as we fluidly let go of identification with one shape and then another. And if we so choose to participate in creation, perhaps the shape-like movements that cause more shapes to arise will bring that same shape again. But is it the same shape? Or just similar? Does it matter if we like it or hate it? Does it even matter if it arises again? Some shapes we may like, some we may hate. The relationships between shapes themselves just more shapes. Do we embrace our shapes with the shape of shame or perhaps acceptance? How do we relate to the shapes? What gives us greater freedom? Perhaps in this way freedom is quite unique. Quite individual. Different for each shape. Can we discover for ourselves what freedom is?
What is inner? What is outer? Do we draw lines at our skin? Are we truly this body or is that too another shape? Perhaps my shape of the body is different than the shape that you see. My self, my gender, my life, seen differently through every pair of eyes or awareness that witnesses it. A square looked at from a far distance might appear to be a triangle. The shadow of a sphere might appear an oval. What perspective do we take?
Roles, professions, categories, preferences, all the various check marks that define us. That we agree to accept. That we agree to accept.
Perhaps though, we are not that triangle which one sees from a distance. No! We are really that cube. No wait! Perhaps we are not even that but a larger double cube! No wait!
Perhaps we are really the field itself just playing... And... Next we are also a torus, a double ... no quadruple helix!
Maybe we are a fountain, continuously renewing, water at play with itself.
Shape out of substance, dissolving, and rising forth once again.