In her Ch 11 bell says “Each day I am grateful for having known a love that enables me to embrace death with no fear of incompleteness or lack, with no sense of irredeemable regret” [bell's Love Ref 16.12]. Living life to the full in this way does not have the fear of death that arises for people whose life has been unfulfilling – living in conditioning. When zandtao considers such questions, his answer is could have done more but could have done far less, could have loved more but could have loved far less.
Bill's family was middle-class conformity and dysfunctional. Despite what happened with them in his life bill feels grateful that his path took him to being dutiful, and even more grateful that he loved his mother at the end. Following upheaval bill attempted to find cosmic love; throughout his teaching life bill attempted to be compassionate, and because of these attempts at fulfilment he is content that he only closely followed his path in retirement – in solitude and having questionable impact. Living life is very much a counter to fearing death, yet for most conditioned people life in the patriarchy is unfulfilled work, their labour used for the benefit of the 1% profits and not for their path. Living and loving life brings fulfilment, if in life we avoid this fulfilment for various conditioned responses then there will always be the gap of unfulfillment, a gap that can bring regret later in life. Through his writing zandtao often reflects on the way he has lived life in order to learn and understand the path. Whilst he was fortunate to have had some guidance from the path since upheaval, it is as much that he has tried to live life that brings him peace now and enables him to write - without any apparent readership  . Attempting to live life to the full enabled that. Whilst for 30 years bill was a wage-slave, his compassion chose the form of that slavery. When bill looks back at contemporaries whose lives were dominated by money and its patriarchal materialism, bill wonders at the state of their own reflections and memories.
“It takes courage to befriend death. We find that courage in life through loving” [bell's Love Ref 16.13]. This feels connected to what has just been described. At 70 zandtao is conscious of death, he makes plans for his limited legacy although that is proving difficult. Zandtao doesn’t think he is afraid of death but he is afraid of not functioning near death – not being able to write. Each year, old age takes abilities from him but because he is writing he doesn’t regret what nature is doing. Death is coming but he can see not wanting to live because his abilities would be too limited – he just hopes such a time would be short. At his age zandtao cannot contribute to the world of work, nor would he want to as there are so many patriarchal restrictions within that world. His writing takes him to different worlds, unconditioned worlds (or at least much less conditioning) where he can follow a path, an inner journey of discovery. Would that death happens just as this inner journey starts to end – and not before! Because he is still loving – following the path through writing, as his body approaches death there is only the writing imperative. Would that the writing feels sufficiently fulfilled over the next years so that death can be accepted and not fought. Loving writing is the meaning life has for him, maybe that meaning is the courage bell talks of. It feels so strange that he can write and yet struggle to find the energy to get to the shops, and has little desire to get to the beach albeit the beach can be full of MAWPs. And he has to build up energy to travel to Bangkok for his passport. “Living with awareness and clarity of mind and heart we are able to embrace the realization of our dying in a manner that allows us to live more fully because we know death is always with us” [bell's Love Ref 16.15]
In Ch12 bell investigates love as healing “In his collection of essays The Fire Next Time, James Baldwin writes about suffering in the healing process, stating: “I do not mean to be sentimental about suffering - but people who cannot suffer can never grow up, can never discover who they are.” Growing up is, at heart, the process of learning to take responsibility for whatever happens in your life. To choose growth is to embrace a love that heals” [bell's Love Ref 17.2]. We suffer but we let it go – we let dukkha go and hopefully eventually quench dukkha; dukkha is Pali for suffering and dukkha is considered one of the 3 characteristics of Buddhism – anatta (no-self), anicca (impermanence) and dukkha (suffering). “The healing power of mind and heart is always present because we have the capacity to renew our spirits endlessly, to restore the soul” [bell's Love Ref 17.7]. Healing is the natural state as is love, we do not need to create healing we simply need to enable it; replace healing by loving and this sentence is the same as discussed on love throughout earlier in the z-quest with bell. Wisdom is also a word that could replace the word healing. It is the burdens that we cling to in life that prevents renewal (healing), healing is learning to leave these attachments behind. In family we start with mother-love and the child loses that love through attachments, that mother-love can return with the release of conditioning and through our efforts to go beyond conditioning.
“In the functional family self-esteem is learned and there is a balance between autonomy and dependency” [bell's Love Ref 17.9]. In childhood self-esteem comes from the love in family, this self-esteem enables survival into adulthood, and in adulthood the self-esteem is let go through love and anatta as our autonomy follows the path. The egos of self divide. In a functional family love brings empathy and respect, in love the individual learns to be autonomous whilst respecting the need of others to also be autonomous. But there is no self in autonomy only path, in autonomy we follow the path nature wants for us. And the dependency means that the empathy allows all family members to function autonomously. “Freeing the Family” means respecting all autonomies, when there are dependencies such as with children that dependency is used with respect to ensure the autonomy of those children.
Autonomy is a very individual thing, the time and space required for an individual to learn about their own path is significant. How far one can go in determining one’s own path within family is not something bill has experience of; he needed to leave the family before he had the freedom to determine his own autonomy as his family including himself were strongly influenced by patriarchy during his upbringing. This inner journey to autonomy needs to be respected, and within a family, mainly nuclear perhaps wider, there might be responsibilities that would compromise this journey. But if a balance to the solitude of zandtao's inner journey can be found – maybe taking a retreat, then perhaps autonomy within familial duties can be found.
But such an individual journey is not enacted for individualistic egoic reasons but for compassionate reasons. Whilst the seeker is developing an individual path, that path is for the benefit of wider society – the community; it is not individualism for egoic reasons. As a progressive bill understood reactions to individualism because many right-wing individualists were using their platform for self-interest. But this can equally be said of politicians who use certain egalitarian principles for their own self-interest. In Buddhist terms a path of solitude does not mean self-interest, paths are from nature and are compassionate. Whilst politicians affirming community interest ought to be compassionate, many are not – many are just using a different vehicle of greed. From the outside we cannot see intention, and the way greed works in our defiled world there are many ways in which self-interest can be manipulated. Throughout Viveka-Zandtao zandtao has described a relationship with solitude all his life yet at different times bill was very active for community interest.
Equally zandtao doesn’t want to condone bypassing, zanshadtao (which is now on hold) has bypassing as a central theme. 100% dedication to an engagement with the path is a requirement. For seekers to choose a lifestyle of isolation that they describe as a path of solitude because in that solitude they can gain from glamours of the path (such as fruits of jhanas) is a delusive path. But the issue is the seeker's intention, and not an outward form of lifestyle that we cannot and should not judge.
“And that pain did not go away even when we left home. More than our pain, our self-destructive, self-betraying behavior trapped us in the traumas of childhood. We were unable to find solace or release” [bell's Love Ref 17.10]. Bill carried the pain of his middle-class conformity into his first job, but through a breakdown was able to release it. Would that have happened if he had found love and family at uni? Later romantic love brought him great pain, and it was through the isolation of what he calls Nyanga that he was able to release it. Could that have happened in family? And if neither of these powerful events had not happened in his life, would he have transferred these pains to blaming others in family? Given the level of alcoholism that existed throughout bill's early adult life including the romantic love, any family would have had to suffer. Zandtao trusts the path enough to think this could not have happened but in truth he doesn’t know. Despite family responsibilities, in his view retreats to provide release or refuge ought to be accepted within society. If they were perhaps “mother’s little helpers” would not be so common-place, or the alcoholism that leaves mothers bringing up children alone would be far more rare.
“Making the primal choice to be saved does not mean we do not need support and help with problems and difficulties” [bell's Love Ref 17.11]. If we take “saved” as meaning “healed” or wellness, this is a decision that the individual must make. But does that decision require solitude? Definitely so in zandtao's life but perhaps not for others, but the decision is what matters and support must enable it even if it is solitude. “This act of opening the heart enables us to receive the healing offered us by those who care” [bell's Love Ref 17.11]. In this saving carers can enable the inner journey or seeker/healer will take that journey through their own volition, but carers cannot save another – seekers can only save themselves. But that saving is very much for the benefit of the community. We do not become aware of the influence of patriarchy by being told, we become aware because we internalise an understanding of that influence. No saving can be forced on anyone, the work – not just the first decision – must be carried out by the individual.
Bell was disturbed by writings that promoted self; zandtao draws a huge distinction between self and the inner journey but he recognises that bell wanted to move away from solitude - a distinction in the 2 approaches. “While it is definitely true that inner contentedness and a sense of fulfillment can be there whether or not we commune in love with others, it is equally meaningful to give voice to that longing for communion” [bell's Love Ref 17.12]. It is my understanding that bell learned her feminism through a group workshop, but in such a workshop zandtao contends that group interactions enabled an inner learning for an individual – even though it might not seem that way; learning occurs through an individual's mindful grasping in whatever context the learning took place. There is a fundamental need for communion, and that without such engagement work on the path lacks most of its meaning; but zandtao questions “equally meaningful”. There are no doubts in his mind that fear of solitude is leading to many people failing to follow their own paths. And the need for path is the highest priority – pathtivism.
“The rugged individual who relies on no one else is a figure who can only exist in a culture of domination where a privileged few use more of the world’s resources than the many who must daily do without. Worship of individualism has in part led us to the unhealthy culture of narcissism that is so all pervasive in our society” [bell's Love Ref 17.13]. On his personal inner journeys zandtao is very much an individual, and has at times chosen a solitude that some might call rugged. Whilst not being Bear Grylls he has enjoyed solitude in nature; but whilst he learnt in that solitude it was always with social purpose. He totally agrees that there is an extremely unhealthy narcissistic culture and that personal compassionless greed of a few damage the many causing inequality with so many inhumane consequences. The individualism of those on the path does not ask for anything that is not sustainable, and genuine seekers do not contribute negatively to the defiled world. There is a cultivated worship of individualism – hero-worship, but that culture does not extend to those on the path such as Rob Kull in Solitude (see Viveka-Zandtao).
Zandtao is not certain as to the rugged individualism bell is referring to. The individualism he doesn’t like is the worship of rich individuals especially the notion that there are good rich individuals who are going to swoop in and be humanity’s benefactors. Within the corruption of the capitalist patriarchy - imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy, it is unlikely that wealth has accumulated in a moral or compassionate fashion. That does not mean that trade is immoral or lacking in compassion, but for accumulation to occur there is likely to be corruption of some form. There has developed on the internet a group of right-wing intellectuals known as the “intellectual dark web” whose fierce intellectualism opens the door to the far right. They are now described as being against identity politics but their individualism also works against compassion. It appears to zandtao that these people have arisen out of US libertarianism where the fierce idealism of “freedom to choose” enables anti-social behaviours. A measure of a compassionate society is the way it cares for those deprived or disadvantaged in some way, these intellectuals tend to view all people as being capable of developing from their own bootstraps. Zandtao feels society needs to find a balance between the individual and society, and that balance is siladhamma and the compassion that arises from it.
“It is no accident that so many of the spiritual teachers we gravitate to in our affluent society, which is driven by the ethos of rugged individualism, come from cultures that value interdependency and working for a collective good over independence and individual gain” [bell's Love Ref 17.14]. Is this simply ideal delusion? Societies such as in India and in the Far East are little more than dictatorships but their religiosity enables the religions that these spiritual teachers arise from. These religions talk of interdependency and compassion but then so does Christianity, how they are institutionally-practiced can be very different. In Myanmar there is a military dictatorship but they have offered a tourist visa for those who wish to study with the Sayadaws. Within these countries maybe communities work together in poverty as part of their recognition of the exploitation of their political leadership, but such rural community can be seen in the West. Perhaps it is the very adversity with their own Eastern patriarchies that creates the community, yet in the West far too many embrace the patriarchy and collude with it. This might be our point of agreement.
Zandtao sees these next 3 consecutive sentences as highlighting a disconnect as they follow bell’s advocacy for community healing rather than communion. “Healing is an act of communion. Most of us find that space of healing communion with like-minded souls. Other individuals recover themselves in their communion with divine spirit” [bell's Love Ref 17.16]. Bell then describes Saint Teresa of Avila’s union with the divine, for zandtao this is the very solitude espoused in Viveka-Zandtao. Solitude and communion with spirit can be the same thing, can that communion with spirit occur within community or does it need retreat or refuge? “All religious traditions acknowledge that there is comfort in reaching for the sacred through words, whether traditional liturgy, prayer, or chants” [bell's Love Ref 17.16]. Zandtao questions whether it is the words or the intent behind the words that is the power of prayer. Is that intent then more in line with meditation practice, in which the practice is concerned with realigning the state of being rather than the practice being the power of the verbiage itself? Healing comes from the connection made through this intent. Community prayer brings people together and reinforces each other in times of difficulty. This is not to belittle the power of such community but to recognise that healing is an individual act. “Stretching, reaching toward that which is limitless and without boundaries is an exercise that strengthens my faith and empowers my soul” [bell's Love Ref 17.16]. An individual act. “In communion with divine spirit we can claim the space of accountability and renew our commitment to that transformation of spirit that opens the heart and prepares us to love” [bell's Love Ref 17.17]. This individual act further enforces the importance of inner journey, and it is not individualism but the type of individualism that needs questioning. Inner journeys on the path and communion with divine spirit are the same; for bell maybe communion with divine spirit and community are intended as the same, perhaps this difference with bell is more concerned with the preference of the types of words used than anything more meaningful. But zandtao still prefers recognising a system of siladhamma that balances the individual and community rather than advocating an either/or.
“After we have made the choice to be healed in love, faith that transformation will come gives us the peace of mind and heart that is necessary when the soul seeks revolution” [bell's Love Ref 17.18]. Zandtao likes this because it talks of healing as being transformative, if we have faith in the path then the "soul seeks revolution"; consciousness love and path are revolutionary because they are compassion - freedom from suffering for all.
Recently zandtao watched “The Mindfulness Movement”, and saw wellness and many social benefits from mindfulness. But what he did not see was what accompanies mindfulness – tathata (discussed here) - bell's soul of revolution. He did not see mindfulness of death from war for profits and whilst there was mindfulness in politics it was not mindfulness of political corruption – mindfulness of patriarchy. What he saw was mindfulness being truncated and then co-opted into the service of patriarchy and not in the service of nature, the origin of the gift of mindfulness. Buddhist institutions also work within their prevailing patriarchies, he mentioned above the example of Myanmar’s meditation visa. In Prajna should there be compromise? If the Heart sutra is “higher”, do we not ask of such “higher” teachings that they be engaged with change? Zandtao is comfortable with teachings leading to wellness first – as typified by zandtaomed, but isn’t it avoidance or bypassing not to SEE the inter-relationship of patriarchy and kilesa? Is this inter-relationship not the source of lack of compassion? Is there avoidance on the part of wise leaders with “higher” teachings not to teach of the tathata they SEE?
“That compassion awakens us to the healing power of service. Love in action is always about service” [bell's Love Ref 17.18 ]. When we extend love from family to community, the actions of that loving extension are service. People working in service need to be recognised as people acting with love. Intelligent people in service have resisted the attachment to greed in business, and the financial rewards that follow; their love and service are unrecognised replacements for that reward. This is the essence of the capitalism of patriarchy, to reward wage-slaves for creating the profits for the accumulators whilst diminishing the loving service of the compassionate. Even worse patriarchy cannot accept such service as love diminishing service’s loving content. In society we have many people whose compassion takes them to service but such people are not recognised as being in service of humanity and especially are not rewarded as such – because that would eat into the profits of the accumulators.
“LOVE REDEEMS. DESPITE all the lovelessness that surrounds us, nothing has been able to block our longing for love, the intensity of our yearning. The understanding that love redeems appears to be a resilient aspect of the heart’s knowledge. The healing power of redemptive love lures us and calls us toward the possibility of healing. We cannot account for the presence of the heart’s knowledge. Like all great mysteries, we are all mysteriously called to love no matter the conditions of our lives, the degree of our depravity or despair” [bell's Love Ref 17.23 ] There is nothing in this that is untrue but it is so convoluted. Try this that comes initially from Eckhart. There is one great mystery – consciousness. Eckhart describes two – the mystery of consciousness and our purpose to evolve consciousness; zandtao puts the two together as one mystery – consciousness. Earlier zandtao included love as part of consciousness so there is still only one mystery. Through attachment we cover up this mystery (sunnata) within us, when we let go of conditioned egos there is love, and therefore the healing of what love can heal. Consciousness – following the path is our purpose to evolve consciousness – healing along the way. When we can accept this mystery of consciousness, when we can accept path, when we can accept sunnata, then it follows – whether it is called heart’s knowledge or not.
In the second part of the Manual zandtaomed described this healing as integration, it is also evident in the 4 Foundations – body, emotion, mind, integrated – love; Teal calls it completion. For MwB ("Mindfulness with Breathing" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) this integration is reconnection with Dhamma –
the 4th tetrad, the first 3 tetrads being the vihara of kaya – body, vedana – feelings/emotions and citta – mind. Apart from the one great mystery of consciousness there is no mystery, the question might be better put - why wouldn’t love heal? Healing is natural. There is emotional pain, release the pain – healing; easily described – not easy to do. Medicine can heal physical trauma – we beneficially use sankhara-khandha for this, but other pains that arise from struggles in daily life can be let go through love or consciousness. This all comes from faith in the path, not a faith based on myth but based on experience of the path extending our trust. On the path what we have not experienced we have faith in, a faith that is magnetic attracting us to path – to consciousness – to love.
Bell then talks of hindrances to our loving – to our healing. “Without hope, we cannot return to love” [bell's Love Ref 17.23]. As we grow up perhaps we hope to love another, this is a hope kindled by love within family or kindled by the first “memory” of mother-love. Perhaps we experience some loving feelings and this hope is substantiated. But hope extends from memory and glimpses, and as our experience substantiates those memories and glimpses hope changes; in terms of real love that hope becomes faith in the path. For romantic love we can hope to meet someone, but does that have to happen? Since upheaval zandtao has never sought reliance on another – only on the path. Even early on he had sufficient trust in the path to just accept that romantic love came or it didn’t, there was a notion of being "close to his path" and what was meant to happen would happen. In truth during his 2nd childhood there was never that real closeness but romantic love did happen. And that romantic love led to real love over time. And what led there was the lack of attachment – releasing and going beyond conditioning. Hope – not so sure; “Renewing our faith in love’s promise, hope is our covenant” [bell's Love Ref 17.23] – my faith and agreement were with the path substantiated by my practise.
“Cynicism is the greatest barrier to love”, bell was deterred by the youth expressing cynicism. What they were expressing was rage at their conditioning and the results of that conditioning, this cynicism came from their experience of being conditioned. But let us consider what that conditioning shows them of love through the media of Hollywood – through their celebrities. In such media there are various intricacies of attraction and rejection that leads to a couple walking down the aisle – the end. Conditioned implication - love is marriage. What do the young see in marriage – dysfunction unless they are really lucky. And what happens to the conditioned heroes that they “worship”? Dysfunction. If what they see and what they dream of are both dysfunctional, then how can there not be cynicism and apathy? The young begin to grow into spirit, they are growing into the conditioning of dysfunctional families, deep down their dreams through celebrities show only conditioned hell, what do they have to look forward to? A similar life of wage-slavery and dysfunctional family?
As there is cynicism amongst youth, the next question is to ask how patriarchy gains from such cynicism. If love does not exist for these youth, what is the next best thing to strive for – wealth and fulfilment through wealth – patriarchy tells you this is the best you can get; it just adds to the pressures of wage-slavery. Yet deep down youth can still hold to the possibility of love. Love is what nature intended – it is part of our consciousness, it is what we return to, it is where we go when we start to heal. When we step out of our conditioned conformity, whatever the cultural trap we are brought up with, then we discover adventure, freedom – hardship at times of course – and some form of fulfilment in ourselves, in our paths, and maybe even in the meeting with lovers. Gap years, but don't stop there; live life and more!! Live then love - maybe. Of course cynicism discourages this as a possibility through cynicism but deep down, youth, know that living and loving is possible - despite upbringing.
“When we take to heart the biblical insistence that “there is no fear in love,” we understand the necessity of choosing courageous thought and action” [bell's Love Ref 17.24 ] points to that stepping out. It is natural to step out as part of life’s cycle, step out and experience the world. Of course this stepping out limits the exploitation by the capitalism of patriarchy, so patriarchy encourages the fear that would inhibit this natural stepping out in a life cycle. That stepping out would encourage the experience of love, romantic love initially; fear benefits the exploitation by patriarchy keeping us attached to security, family community, and job conformity – the trappings of wage-slavery – the capitalism of patriarchy. Live life, love heals, live life.
In her Ch13 bell looks at destiny and angels - and the angels in her life. Would that bill had had angels as a child! Religiously he had rejected Catholicism. The religious drive in his family was ostensibly his father’s mother – a devout Irish catholic. His mother’s father was also a devout catholic, although his influence on his mother was strong this did not appear to translate to any religious verve or pressure. This family background meant a Catholic primary school, and weekly masses. Bill remembers an embarrassment concerning Catholic pressure at primary school when each person in the class announced which Catholic secondary school they hoped to go to, and his father had put his foot down about attending the local grammar school – he remembers feeling that his father had hated all the travelling he had done as a child to go to a Catholic secondary. In the class bill felt the pressure at the announcement, what pressure the school gave his parents he doesn’t know. The grammar school was the other end of his suburb, and he hated the 3 miles to get there, the nearest Catholic secondary was 7 miles. At different times as a child bill had succumbed to catholic pressures including a time when he went to church before school. He presumes he was still going to church on Sundays at the time he was changing schools but he is not even sure about that. Neither of his parents went, and his younger brother stopped going before he did. He is sure his Catholic grandparents both had a strong relationship with Catholicism, one way or another, but for bill there was no such relationship – only a duty that was not strong that transformed into a habit that soon stopped by the time he was 11 or 12. “BELIEVING IN DIVINE love comforted me as a child when I felt overwhelmed by loneliness and sorrow” [bell's Love Ref 18.5], would that he had had that succour. But then how much would that have changed his self-esteem and therefore upheaval. OK he was 11 or 12 when his Catholicism ended, and perhaps bell was talking of comfort that happened when she was older. As an adult zandtao is now glad there was no such investment in anything as a child because it then meant that there was no clinging to his upbringing allowing upheaval to happen. Being uninvested was perhaps the best thing about his childhood because upheaval was so refreshing and came with no effort.
Bill does recall nature being part of his childhood. Not only did he walk everywhere in his suburb but also spent a long time by a nearby river. As well as this he will always be grateful to the teachers who took him walking in the Peaks and Pennines, neither teacher was popular – a star – but gratitude for this intro to nature will always be there. As a new teacher bill took his house group on a long weekend in the Dales because of this – eventful and fulfilling, but he never did it again in the UK because there was no protection for teachers. He did take a bunch of 6th formers camping in Oman – that was also rewarding but he made all the parents sign an “NDA” absolving him from any blame. Whilst rewarding such trips were hard work especially losing your weekend in term time, yet neither administrations or education authorities do anything to protect the teachers, let alone reward them for the extra effort.
Being close to nature is a big part of the path. Once upheaval happened, there was always time away from the routine and inner city; this would be a combination of nature and the solitude that enabled writing. Bill cannot ever remember thinking “wow I am in nature” in the Peaks as a teenager – remembered feelings were mostly wet and cold. Now he is old and what he misses living outside the UK are the coast paths and countryside, and he is sad he was too drunk or tired to make more of them; now he physically couldn’t even if he lived there. In nature there is divine love, he wonders whether bell would have accepted that. Since upheaval reconnecting with nature either physically or through the muse has always been important, now it happens in meditation - although he is retired in rural countryside near a beach. Being in nature, or close to nature, brings with it a feeling of interbeing – however strong. Intellectually we might know that a sheet of paper comes from interbeing but feeling interbeing is more fulfilling.
For zandtao now nature is maybe akin to how bell felt in her youth with Divine Love and the presence of angels. “The solace of knowing I could speak my heart to God and the angels made me feel less alone. They were there with me during anguished and terrifying dark nights of the soul when no one understood. They were there with me, listening to my tears and my heartache” [bell's Love Ref 18.5 ]. As a child bill never reached the awareness that he needed to be understood, he did only what was required of him without investment, reaching out to be understood is a form of investment. He doesn’t remember tears and heartache – a repressed emotional environment meant never experiencing that level. One advantage of middle-class conformity is the conformity itself, the lack of awareness means there is limited questioning. For bill leading up to upheaval this was a benefit. There was undoubted loneliness but it was almost unconscious; lonely but not feeling lonely.
This lack of investment also helped with another theme in bell’s chapter 13 – shame, because of this lack of investment shame was marginalised; it was not zandtao growing up but some disinvested automaton who barely responded to what was happening around and never had a self to feel shame. Shame came more into the 2nd childhood but fragmentation helped there. Shame arose through what happened when he drank yet he was able to fragment that as the drink (alcohol-me) and not me. Although drinking contributed to his breakdown that was part of upheaval, shame about drinking was never a problem because most of that shame occurred after upheaval, and by that time there was some letting go as part of the path. The path has no shame, following the path is siladhamma so no shame arises. Did bill follow his path? To some extent. Could he have done more? Yes. Less? Yes. Shame? No.
In discussing Jacob, his lover and the angel bell quotes John Sanford (The Man who wrestled with God) “As long as a man remains in a state of psychological development in which his mother is the most important woman to him, he cannot mature as a man. A man’s eros, his capacity for love and relatedness, must be freed from attachment to the mother, and able to reach out to a woman who is his contemporary; otherwise he remains a demanding, dependent, childish person” [bell's Love Ref 18.10 ]. This is worth investigating as there is clearly some truth in it, but complete truth? Let’s consider the loves that we have met. There is the idyllic mother-love at birth that is worn away by conditioning, then there is romantic love that might well be Sanford’s eros, and there is real or spiritual love. Zandtao sees a progression in these 3 loves. At the time of birth mother-love is real or true love. Slowly this love is tarnished by conditioning even though there is still some mother-love relationship. Zandtao advocates a freeing of the family to extend itself and extend love into community and society against the adversity of patriarchy, but that is far from happening now. With the conditioning there will still be some clinging to mother-love but it is natural as young men begin to step out (break the double bind) that they find passion which could be the beginning of romantic love (eros?); certainly the sex drive would be looking for such passion if the self was not committed to romantic love. The final stage is when the limitations of romantic love are recognised thus hopefully leading to spiritual or real love rather than frustration.
[Note zandtao can personally attest to romantic love being a stepping stone that we leave aside before we accept spiritual love. Others do say that romantic love can of itself become real love, that is for them to advocate.]
Whilst zandtao can understand Sanford’s criticism of demanding and dependent childish males clinging to mother - as Jung's puer aeternus, zandtao questions how this childishness arises. Both nature and conditioning encourage men to propagate family, in the case of the patriarchy - the nuclear family. It is natural for young men to leave the family home for new romantic love as there are aspects of this propagation that a mother cannot satisfy eg the sex drive and ultimately children. Zandtao cannot see romantic love being held back by mother-love at that stage in life, but he can see mother-love being blamed for the immaturity in the man and the woman blaming mother-love because her love is unrequited.
But whilst sex and procreation drives lead to men wanting "new nuclear families" zandtao feels more needs to be asked of how men maintain this natural childish attachment to mothers; equally we can ask of the woman's connection to her parents yet she will naturally have a strong maternal drive. Spiritually we come from our parents - some say we spiritually choose our parents. At birth we, women and men, have mother-love, by the time we leave home - "new nuclear family" - has that love gone? Is it desireable for that love to have gone? When Sanford asks for "A man’s .... capacity for love and relatedness to be freed from attachment to the mother", is he not being unrealistic? Doesn't that mother-love remain throughout life? It is not the mother-love that needs to be questioned but the lack of maturity in the man's decision to form a "new nuclear family". Women are driven by the biological maternal whereas men are far less so driven. For some men is this "romantic love" simply a requited sex drive? How many such men make a conscious decision concerning family? And because such immature men still love their mothers it is this attachment that is blamed by the woman rather than her blaming the man she loves for his immaturity. There is a spiritual continuity that flows through the generations - this is the natural process, failing to recognise this continuity can lead to unreasonable demands - such as separation from family attachment. It is not attachment to mother that causes the immaturity in men, it is an immature failure to accept responsibility - a level of maturity that is natural in the mother wanting a child.
The patriarchy does not develop that maturity in men, in fact the opposite it fosters the adolescent desires in men. It is this childishness that is taken into the new relationship - "new nuclear family", and it is this immaturity that patriarchy is responsible for. Rather than encouraging the paternal in men, patriarchy encourages the adolescent. Young men are encouraged to recognise that adolescent desires can be fulfilled through "success in patriarchy" - satiating the self in young men rather than building the responsibility for new life and family that is nature's order. Young men wanting to "sow wild oats" are suddenly met with family responsibility and they are often found lacking. Women talk of a lack of commitment in men, this is simply conditioning. To blame this immaturity on anything other than patriarchy is patriarchal apologism, attachment to mother and her love is lifelong and needs to be considered as a bonus of extended family in bringing up children. Address the real issue, a man is often immature because of conditioning - because of patriarchy.
“Many of us believe our difficulties will end when we find a soul mate. Love does not lead to an end to difficulties, it provides us with the means to cope with our difficulties in ways that enhance our growth” [bell's Love Ref 18.11 ]. This is also worth considering in terms of love and patriarchy. There is no doubt at all that patriarchy advocates the soulmate as the end of the road – Hollywood. Bell rightly talks of love providing the means to cope yet patriarchy says soulmate is the end of the road. It is as if patriarchy wants to lay the blame on the soulmates not truly loving for the ensuing hardship that arises in life; blaming love rather than patriarchy. In isolation this claim about patriarchy might be considered a stretch but when we consider the totality of the inimical relationship between love and patriarchy it is just another part of the adversity. Love is the way through patriarchy as well as the means for coping with it; love as bell points out is the way to grow, it is the way of consciousness. Love as soulmates is not an end to difficulties because patriarchy continues to condition thus creating difficulties for all in their daily lives.
In the soulmate process patriarchy seeks the isolation of the soulmates in the nuclear family, the economic unit that capitalism can use for its benefit. With the nuclear family there is a greater likelihood that there will be dependency on the patriarchy rather than the love of an extended family – and the extended community. In a traditional nuclear family the father focusses on wealth-creation rather than upbringing, in the modern nuclear family both parents focus on the wealth-creation to the detriment of children. But in many western countries they have no choice because of the cost of living. If there were more economic interdependence with wider families and community, there would be less emphasis on the nuclear need for wealth creation, less pressure on parents to provide the money and less pressure on other parental duties.
“Addressing woundedness is not about blaming others; however, it does allow individuals who have been, and are, hurt to insist on accountability and responsibility both from themselves and from those who were the agents of their suffering as well as those who bore witness” [bell's Love Ref 18.17 ]. The process of healing has to be wanted. When we address our wounds, it involves people who might not want to be a part of that healing. Many of the wounds we suffer occur within family, ideally that family would want to heal together but more than likely an individual wants to be healed and the family are conditioned to hide from their responsibility in creating the wound. An individual can heal their wounds without requiring the family (or others) to heal, in that healing they can reach out to those involved in the wounding but there needs to be agreement.
The involvement of those who participated in the wounding is not a requirement for the healing. In Inner Child work the individual uses processes such as Thay’s Reconciliation ("Reconciliation: Healing the Inner Child" by Thich Nhat Hanh), but those processes do not involve parents or siblings; healing can occur on their own. As an individual starts their healing others involved in the wounding would benefit by being part of the process, but they are not a requirement of the healing and nor should they be. In zandtao's own healing of family wounds his parents did not choose to be involved when alive, and were not a requirement when dead. Healing from the pain of romantic love is a personal matter and does not require the participation of the lover, again there would be mutual gain but it is not a requirement.
On a personal level zandtao feels healing is better done alone as already discussed. It is not a requirement of real loving that we be loved it is just better. Equally for healing as we heal we can help others involved heal, but in terms of our own personal healing it is better that we do not think the involvement of others is required. Our pain is our own pain to release, our love is our own love to reconnect with. The healing of others cannot occur unless they choose to heal; involuntarily involving them could lead to your own healing being limited – restricted. In discussing Jacob bell says “However, healing happens when he is able to embrace the wound as a blessing and assume responsibility for his actions” [bell's Love Ref 18.18 ]. Jacob’s healing occurred when he assumed responsibility for his actions. If we understand conditioning, then we can know that all our childhood actions arise from causes and conditions. It would therefore be easy to apportion blame on parents. But healing occurs when we take responsibility for our actions, in meditation that comes when our actions arise from the 5 Dhamma Comrades, a time when we go beyond the conditionality.
Jacob embraced the “wound as a blessing”. In Buddhism the path arises out of suffering. In bill's personal life his main romantic love caused him huge suffering. Whilst his life continued there was a change in lifestyle, but for a number of years after the separation there was coping with internalised pain. Through a process he has often called Nyanga bill released the pain, but he still saw the relationship as painful. Only recently, maybe 30 years later, did he recognise that the romantic love had developed real love, that the relationship was a blessing. Concerning the wounds the healing occurred on his own – not involving his lover nor her family; he can’t imagine how their involvement might have affected things except bill's immediate reaction would be that they would have pulled him back into pain.
Bell quotes Kornfield and Feldman “As we turn toward the specific shadows in our own lives with an open heart and a clear and focused mind, we cease resisting and begin to understand and to heal. In order to do this, we must learn to feel deeply, not so much opening our eyes as opening the inner sense of the mind and the heart” [bell's Love Ref 18.19 ]. This opening the heart is very much an inner process that does not include the participation of those involved in creating the shadows. But compassion would include healing for all if “all” chose to heal.
“As a nation, we need to gather our collective courage and face that our society’s lovelessness is a wound” [bell's Love Ref 18.20 ]. This is very much what zandtao has taken from the recent part of this Z-quest; lovelessness is a wound of patriarchy, the way our patriarchy functions there is likely to be lovelessness. It is better to recognise that our journey back to love confronts that patriarchy, and that sadly the patriarchy will not change without being confronted. Do not expect to be supported by society in that journey back to love, whilst family and community might well support you that would be despite patriarchy rather than because of it.
Do we know that patriarchy creates the lovelessness and will resist a return to love? This is tathata, SEEing what is what. When we talk of spirituality, do we also know that patriarchy will resist a return to consciousness? If we know this is tathata, how can we work towards liberation for all, compassion – freedom for all from suffering if we do not understand that in terms of the 2 conditionings, our journeys must confront patriarchy whether we choose or not?
On angels bell said “From childhood on, I found many of my angels in favorite authors, writers who created books that enabled me to understand life with greater complexity. These works opened my heart to compassion, forgiveness, and understanding” [bell's Love Ref 18.21 ]. In childhood bill found no such succour although zandtao accepts the kamma of his life’s design, could it have been any other way? In 2nd childhood these angels, first as the Arts Centre and then as authors, provided the companionship and understanding that enabled bill to resist patriarchal reconditioning following firstgrace. Given the inimical environment of patriarchy there is a need to raise awareness of the path so that those fortunate to experience firstgrace don’t feel isolated. As the heart at firstgrace goes beyond and is opened to compassion forgiveness and understanding, the forces of conditioning work to pull you back from the beyond; the purpose of bell’s wider angels is to reinforce firstgrace’s initial breakthrough hopefully enabling more to follow the path.
“The presence of angels, of angelic spirits, reminds us that there is a realm of mystery that cannot be explained by human intellect or will” [bell's Love Ref 18.24]. The key word is mystery, bell’s understanding of love was unlocked for zandtao with the use of the word “mystery” as discussed above. When love is understood as part of consciousness and consciousness is understood in terms of what Eckhart describes as the fundamental mystery, there is a meeting of the spiritual and bell’s visions that are love in community. What is mystery? What is the unknown? More importantly does it matter, so long as we seek into mystery? Bell takes her journey into love, Eckhart might describe his journey as seeking into consciousness, but is there a destination that can be known? Such is a mystery that we can open our hearts to, a mystery that can say love is the answer yet in some ways that in itself is not an answer, in the same way the 5 Dhamma comrades are the answer – yet not, as well as the confusing sunnata of the Heart sutra as an answer - yet not.
And with this mystery of love a wise person can talk of angels constructively. Of course there is mean-spirited mocking but that is more a self-indictment than a constructive addition to knowledge and understanding. Let us hope that love opens the door for these mean-spirited people, and that the conditioning that distorts their humanity can be left behind as their hearts accept love. Let us hope that those mockers with a Christian background can listen to bell’s angels and open their hearts to love’s mystery. And for those who are “woke”, can they entertain the doubt that comes with genuine enquiry – genuine seeking into the mystery of love? Can they awaken to a world where intellectual certainty is left behind and can they begin to embrace a world of human community that is not divided by intellectual “rightness”?
“in the stillness of my pitch-dark room I grappled with the metaphysics of love, seeking to understand love’s mystery. That grappling continued until my awareness intensified and a new vision of love came to me. Now I recognize that I was engaged from then until now in a disciplined spiritual practice—opening the heart .... Understanding all the ways fear stands in the way of our knowing love challenges us” [bell's Love Ref 18.25]. It feels good to me that bell recognised that she was on a spiritual journey – opening the heart. From bill's time in activism there was a schism between political activism and spiritual activism, the political held to a group of ideas looking for the religious to conform to those ideas. At the same time the religious often asked for a belief in God, and were distrustful of those who didn’t. Add into this an idealism that included “religion is an opiate of the masses", and instead of people united through compassion working against an exploiting patriarchy we had an arbitrary separation, a separation that was enhanced by religious institutionalism. A divide-and-rule that patriarchy promoted.
Opening the heart could be a unifying call for all activism – certainly pathtivism, a love-revolution uniting together to work against the exploitation by the few for profits. This revolution would be changing class because the only way we can develop as a human society is by changing class eg by changing the class of the exploiters – the patriarchy; change to a class of people working together for love. Is this description of class fundamentally different to the historical description of class as the owners (bourgeoisie) exploiting the proletariat, the 1% exploiting the 99%, the patriarchy exploiting those whose life could be loving. Marx’s description of class arose out of an analysis of economic exploitation but the people who exploit do not limit their exploitation to financial profit-making. When we examine the effects of capitalist exploitation on society through the lens of the wise such as bell hooks, we see patriarchy - imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy - exploiting throughout society in terms of race and gender. When we examine this exploitation’s impact on daily life we see a patriarchy that confronts love, it is not a confrontation that is the objective of patriarchy – their objective is simply the profit-making, but the consequence of such exploitation leads to marginalising of love because love detracts from profits. Calls for a class united in love would end patriarchy, and calls for a revolution where the new ruling class was love would bring so many benefits to humanity.
Similarly opening the heart means a recognition of the damage caused by patriarchy to our Mother Earth, it opens our hearts to compassion recognising the destruction of indigenous life, the impoverishment of people within hegemonic communities as well as the death of communities meted out by imperialist wars. When tathata arises we can see the way the profits for the few accumulators have schismed our society into those who benefit financially and those who do not - with an intermediary category of those who are favoured. But tathata is not interested in finance only, in fact tathata is only interested in the consequences of the finances; when tathata opens the heart and we SEE the way the world is, we SEE the class divide of 1% and 99% but more importantly we SEE finance has created the world of patriarchy and the limiting of love.
But without opening the heart there is a class divide in which a few benefit, and seeing is limited. With compassion we can SEE the full impact of the damage of the class divide. When we examine the class divide economically we can see exploitation, but when we SEE the full impact we have to ask why do we allow the profits of a few to impact the full range of our lives and humanity just because it suits their profits and accumulation. It is not simply the economic benefit unity of the 99% brings, but it brings back a society of love and consciousness, a unity across race and gender, a unity across peoples, a unity across religious institutions – not simply a unity across economic interest.
SEEing through opening the heart brings people together and we have to question why our wise leaders do not discuss SEEing in this way. We can understand the vested interest of those who are installed as puppet government, but what of our religious leaders – are they equally compromised? Why aren’t Buddhist leaders in the vanguard of compassion against the patriarchy that exploits and causes so much suffering? Why not the same for other religious leaders? For the mindfulness movement?
For bell there is a fear of not loving that she overcomes through opening her heart. Fear enhances a class divide between the accumulators and the exploited, but it also enhances the divide between patriarchy and love. Opening the heart ends the shame of not loving. Why can’t we SEE through our open hearts that kilesa in the greed of a few through conditioning turns into hatred and delusion creating our defiled world? When we love our open hearts cross the class divide, and love-wisdom SEES the economic exploitation with all its implications. That is the love-wisdom that arises and is applied to daily life rather than being marginalised within an institution through fear. In seekers they develop learning to overcome the fear that causes lovelessness. But in our wise leaders there is no such fear; our wise leaders recognise the need for opening our hearts - this opening is a recognised part of the teaching. But wise leadership will also SEE that the kilesa conditioning and patriarchy are what is closing our hearts - creating the fear. The teachings note the problem of defilement but do not address this kilesa as patriarchy; why?
Compassion to end all suffering is simply love expressing itself. Compassion must then ask why isn’t love expressing itself, and with wisdom we answer that it is the consequences of the exploitation by patriarchy. The conditioning of defiled world then deludes us that the class division of patriarchy is concerned with a few emotional young intellectuals blowing off steam rather than patriarchy having a lack of compassion, love consciousness and path are lost within this delusion. With sampajanna wise leaders could say what they SEE, by saying this would the world begin to end the delusions patriarchy has created? Across all echelons of the 99%, we could return to love through opening our hearts and not accepting the profit model of a few, but for most of the 99% wage-slavery currently restricts their choice. The wage-slaves of the 99% look to wise leaders for guidance out of the slavery. When we hear the rage of division within the 99% do our wise leaders talk of this? Class division is not simply the benefits of the few, it is a loss of humanity for all, a loss of humanity that religious leadership claims to espouse. Is our religious leadership compromised? Or do wise leaders within religions SEE the exploitation and choose not to say? Why? Is it the delusion of compromise?
“Fearful that believing in love’s truths and letting them guide our lives will lead to further betrayal, we hold back from love when our hearts are full of longing. Being loving does not mean we will not be betrayed. Love helps us face betrayal without losing heart” [bell's Love Ref 18.26 ]. Opening the heart and seeking love is life’s journey, and it is leadership’s duty to enable this. The struggle for love is full of human frailty without that struggle also being weighed down by a patriarchy that benefits a few. Enable the hearts of all to open through this human struggle rather than being closed by a society who have fallen for the delusions that benefit a few. SEE through the conditioning that creates this and seek liberation. How do we expect wage-slaves to have the freedom to liberate themselves? How does wise leadership seeing the lack of liberation teach us to free ourselves? When the angels can tell us to see love why do they not say what the cause of lovelessness is? Is it enough to say conditioning and kilesa? “When angels speak of love they tell us it is only by loving that we enter an earthly paradise” [bell's Love Ref 18.26 ]. SEE so that we can experience earthly love.
This SEEing awareness includes the dilemma for Prajna - the world of Heart sutra. It is the world of potential bypassing. For seekers in this world there is clarity, seekers do not accept conditioning and propaganda that avoids the true way things are. For zandtaomed’s world of wellness plus, the issue is path – are seekers doing the best they can to follow their path? Whilst the threshold dilemma of Prajna SEEing should not be avoided for zandtaomed advice, it is more important that those seekers come to understand the path as
Seekers find the place where they are authentic - see App B for Amandla’s “My Authenticity is my activism”.
But what of seekers who have crossed this threshold, then there must be 100% engagement with daily life. Why are teachers of such seekers avoiding such issues of death and war-for-profits and yet calling their teachings higher teachings? Do they insist that threshold seekers engage with war and death? If ever zandtao the seeker teaches across the threshold, at the moment war and death is 101. If teachings are higher they must not be avoiding or bypassing but more deeply engaging.
Sunnata is independent of self. Does that mean there is no war and death because all is sunnata? Answer – diamond sutra. Whatever sunnata is and whatever suffering is left behind, there is still war and death – even as illusion. During the Vietnam war Buddhist monks self-immolated and Thay was exiled despite studying the Heart sutra and emptiness, HHDL is still in exile – or realistically has a new home in Dharamsala. These are real and seekers must engage with these issues 100% - wherever their path and seeking takes them to.
In Prajna there is a need for constant awareness of engagement; spirituality is not avoidance – that is kilesa, bypassing. In their wisdom seekers must face death and war, they must come to terms with patriarchy - imperialist, white-supremacist, capitalist patriarchy. Are devotees whose life is in prostration engaging with these issues? Watch. When they confront these issues seekers must decide on their sampajanna – not shift into bypassing; in Tibetan this might be the Boddhisattva vow. Prajna is why zandtao is drawing a clear distinction between the advice of zandtaomed the elder and the writings of zandtao the seeker. The advice that zandtaomed gives is more than sufficient, and if not the advice itself then the path will take such a seeker into Prajna. But there are concerns for those starting in Prajna. Zandtaomed starts in the 4 foundations of mindfulness, “What the Buddha Gautama Taught”; where does the Heart sutra start?
Zandtao does not know Mahayana and one of the 2 Buddhist teachers he trusts is Thay - Mahayanan/Zen, zandtao doesn’t know where trusted Mahayana would start. History as always is a guide. The Buddha Gautama saw the need to change Hindu teachings, his teachings were geared to Hindus, and his language was to help them change. The teachings history begins with “What the Buddha Gautama Taught”, and began in the Southern school. But the teachings also moved North into Mahayana coming back round Asia to Vietnam. As they moved North, the teachings were changed – updated by the experience of various seekers. This led to proliferation in the writings. Zandtao considers his writings as a proliferation but they are truthful - as far as his experience knows. Zandtao trusts the writings of Buddhadasa, they are truthful but also by the nature of writing a proliferation. Zandtao starts from “What the Buddha Gautama Taught” as the original, he trusts but does not understand - nor has he studied - the suttas as recorded in the Southern school – the Pali Canon. In these suttas are the foundations, know your foundations and build on them. This is what Thay does in "Awakening of the Heart" – elsewhere zandtao doesn’t know. But starting with studying the Heart sutra doesn’t make sense to zandtao, but then he doesn’t know how Mahayana (or Thay) teaches.
So when it comes to Real Love zandtao’s seeking has taken him into Prajna – love-wisdom, but zandtaomed’s advice on Real Love would begin with Sharon’s book and Sharon’s 4 Brahma-Vihara meditations – Real Love built on the sound foundations of mindfulness. Building on these foundations led zandtao to Prajna yet love is still part of the mystery of consciousness and is found in MwB ("Mindfulness with Breathing" by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu). Prajna is a development of love and wisdom in the 4 foundations but it is not “new” – it is the learning that comes from seeking beyond conditioning on the inner journey. It is the path that got you there – the warning of Diamond sutra, and atammayata is still the way of learning. That is not to say that prajnaparamita is not the way forward, but whatever prajnaparamita is it would be based on atammayata – based on the 4 foundations of MwB.
“Love is the only force that allows us to hold one another close beyond the grave. That is why knowing how to love each other is also a way of knowing how to die” [bell's Love Ref 16.21 ] Whilst death is an end to the physical body, there is continuation in other ways. An artist’s work continues after death, the work itself does not change - only the commercialisation around the work changes. Zandtaomed’s advice towards atammayata does not change, conditioning changes but atammayata doesn't. The website, will continue for as long as the legacy provision and the online technology works. This is a form of creative continuation.
Love continues in the hearts of the survivors, what are the full implications of this? Love survives death in the hearts of lovers. Does real love survive into evolving consciousness? Does real wisdom survive into evolving consciousness? Zandtao tends to think yes, giving some meaning to consciousness work and evolving consciousness. For it is what he uses the word prajna for, and zandtao speculates that prajna is the love-wisdom consciousness that evolves. Acceptance of Eckhart’s 2nd mystery of consciousness arose once zandtao crossed the threshold; but that does not mean that prior to this there was not evolution of consciousness, awareness as with any knowledge brings clarity and motivation based on that clarity. For zandtao this is writing and the writing legacy – his continuation.
This is not placing value on the writing although it arises from the path as creativity, it is meaning that zandtao gives. In life there can be love as consciousness – real love not romantic love, real love that is consciousness; this is more like a love essence – hence Real Love. It can be reconnected to through romantic love, a kind of nascent love from birth processed through romantic love into an evolved love essence as evolved love consciousness. Zandtao feels similarly about wisdom. There is the essence of love-wisdom at birth, then throughout life knowledge is gained and from this knowledge wisdom essence creates wisdom that evolves consciousness. This feels the way it is, but it is speculation - a ditthi.
“Now and then when I find myself forgetting to celebrate life, unmindful of the way embracing death can heighten and enhance the way I interact with the world, I take time to think about whether I would be at peace knowing that I left someone without saying what’s in my heart, that I left with harsh words” [bell's Love Ref 16.23 ]. Here bell is talking of regret in relationships, and if a person dies and there is regret there is grief. This is part of something zandtao has alluded to earlier in this chapter. Consider the 3-memes:-
No regret in relationship is doing the best we can. In love if we try and fail there is sadness but no regret, in life if we try and fail there is no regret. But doing the best we can is not concerned with social success, it is about path. Bell talks of embracing death, and this reminds zandtao of a Castaneda thing with death – act as if death is over your left shoulder. Follow your path as if death is over your left shoulder. Don’t procrastinate. People have said they will play the game become powerful and then make changes – they get eaten up. The path is doing the best you can always, but not always in a heavy always – just a gentle always without compromising but gently. At times bill was too bull-at-a-gate, at other times he had given up; gently follow your path – do the best you can to be the best you can be. Embracing death is the same, be aware death is coming and maybe things need doing. Prepare your legacy. But you cannot make amends for life because death is coming; death needs always to have been over your left shoulder as a motivation.
Zandtao spends much time learning by reviewing life in order to understand. The purpose of this review is to move forward and learn – it is part of his current path of learning and writing. But what if he allowed himself to become attached to sanna – memory, that indulgence could lead to attempts at redress – pointless and futile. For zandtao old age is about developing wisdom not indulging regret; at times when development has led to an understanding of how he has behaved he has reached out esp to family – to no avail; in old age it is not about building the new so much as learning wisdom from the old. If death has always been over your left shoulder of course there would have been minimal regret – no different now in old age. It is not about newly embracing death but realistically embracing life – embracing an older person’s life in a measured way. It is a measured approach to life in which we live by path rather than evaluating outcomes. We live by the 4 Agreements – being impeccable with the word, rather than an outcome where harsh words have created a division and we wish to make amends. “I try daily to learn to leave folks as though we might never be meeting again. This practice makes us change how we talk and interact. It is a way to live consciously” [bell's Love Ref 16.23]. A process of consciously trying (best we can?) – outcome is not the measure, the process is.
“Love empowers us to surrender. We do not need to have endless anxiety and worry about whether we will fulfil our goals or plans. Death is always there to remind us that our plans are transitory”
[bell's Love Ref 16.26] As with doing the best we can, in love we are not concerned with goals or outcomes, but whether we follow our paths. In love we are concerned with loving – just loving; whilst it is better reciprocation of loving doesn’t matter – except to our egos.
When path meets path there is love, love arises. Might this become romantic love? Uncertain. Following the path usually includes a lifestyle – for example the solitude of viveka-zandtao - lifestyles might not be compatible; communication might be sufficient for love on the path. In romantic love such real love need not arise, romantic love can wane, change to compatibility, or develop into love on the path. With developing wisdom prajna as love-wisdom grows, Sharon’s 4 Brahma-Vihara meditations help perfect the vihara for doing this. With this z-quest into Sharon's Real Love zandtao has determined real love as an aspect of consciousness that arises as we follow our path with prajna, perfecting the vihara through Sharon’s 4 Brahma-Vihara meditations and MwB enables this real love. With bell the z-quest looks at the lovelessnes of patriarchy, and how we can work to devlop Real Love within the kilesa of patriarchal conditioning. This begins with love in the family extending out into the community. The sampajanna of real love is siladhamma, and living a loving life brings with it fulfilment - a life of living and loving on the path.
|
Zandtao Meditation page
Advice from Zandtaomed