Thusness and I think this is a book with great clarity.
.............
A few excerpts from Gesture of Awareness by
Charles Genoud:
When we develop true intimacy with our body, we become intimate with ourselves. We learn to be present as a whole. We open to discovery of our essence when the dichotomy of body-mind is dropped.
When we develop true intimacy with our body, we become intimate with ourselves. We learn to be present as a whole. We open to discovery of our essence when the dichotomy of body-mind is dropped.
This is precisely the
purpose of the practice of Gesture of Awareness.
In this practice we
explore movement to discover the nature of awareness. We inquire even of the
sensation of tension in the neck – becoming aware not of the sensation but of
the consciousness of it; becoming aware not of the consciousness of it, but of
the essence of the consciousness. One does not always have to practice Gesture
of Awareness, though, in such a gradual way.
If the body is just a
thought, the play of awareness, then ultimately an intimate knowledge of the
body is an intimate knowledge of awareness...
..........
....Are we present
..........
....Are we present
in what we do
at every instant?
Or are we doing
the not-yet-here,
that which we are wishing
for
In the simplicity
of the experience,
is the doing of what we do
happening
anywhere?
The action is
not located anywhere.
In order for something
to be placed somewhere
there needs
to be at least two
phenomena.
When there is only one,
there is nothing with
respect to
where it may be located.
Bodily sensations are not
in the body -
for the sensations
themselves,
the sensations are not
happening anywhere.
From the left hand’s point
of view,
it is not located
anywhere.
It is nowhere.
Nothing to improve.
If there were only one
universe
and therefore nothing
outside it,
could we located the
universe?
Here without any
possibility
of there is devoid of
signification.
Here nondualistically
is meaningless.
Now here
nowhere.
...........
Can the most dense place
of presence be found in
the head
or heart or wherever else?
is the place with the
densest sense of being
right in the experience
itself?
Is the place with the
densest sense of being
right in bodily sensation
when there is bodily
sensation?
right in the experience
itself:
in a thought
when there is a thought?
What if we bring our
attention,
our awareness, to a
specific place,
any specific place, any
part of the body?
If we try as meditators to
bring our awareness to our walking we’ll be
in the profane place in
front of the temple.
When we bring our
attention somewhere
we’re in the profane
world.
Bringing our awareness
to any experience means
we’re not
in the most dense place of
existence.
We don’t need to bring our
awareness anywhere -
awareness is always within
the arising
of the experience itself.
We don’t need to make any separation
between bodily sensations
and awareness.
Bodily sensations are
already awareness.
Thought is already
awareness.
We don’t need to bring
awareness to the thought.
What we’re exploring
is not the body
but the body’s awareness.
We’re just exploring
the body of awareness.
We may wonder where
the body’s awareness is,
imagining it’s in the
body.
but the body’s awareness
will only be
in the body if we stand
outside ourselves
trying to figure out where
it is.
The center gives
orientation.
It’s not located anywhere.
The experience of the
body’s awareness
or the thought’s awareness
is not located anywhere
from the standpoint of the
experience.
There is nothing outside
the experience of the
body’s awareness.
Awareness is not located
anywhere.
It is not situated in
space.
for space would then be
something known by
experience: it’s not a
characteristic
of awareness itself.
In our exploration
it’s not necessary
to direct our
awareness.
Rather, let awareness
play out on its own.
Rest simply with
experiences,
with bodily sensations,
thoughts.
If one tries to bring
awareness
someplace then one may not
be complete.
And so now you know
where the place to be is.
..........
In spiritual circles,
workshops, talks, and retreats
words like here and
now are used like mantras,
as if they express truth.
Don’t the words here and
now
depend on place, on time -
on before and after?
Don’t they express
dualism?
Don’t the words here and
now
express a fragmented
understanding?
We may find this notion
that things
don’t happen in place or
time
more challenging.
An experience happens
somewhere only when
we place ourselves outside
the experience
as an observer, as an
experiencer.
An experience happens
somewhere only with
respect to
another somewhere.
When we are the experience
itself,
can it be experienced
at any place?
When we bring our
attention
somewhere, don’t we create
a place?
When I move my attention
to my arm,
mindful of sensations in
my arm,
am I not making a place, a
world?
isn’t this how we
structure
our daily lives, our
reality?
This structure of our
lives,
our reality, is exactly
what we’re questioning.
We’re questioning the way
we create
a world through attitude
and language
and purposeful
mindfulness.
When we believe in the
world
in which we live,
when we believe in
separation,
when we believe in
duality,
in subject and object,
we’re creating
our cage, our prison, our
chains.
Or we may keep on creating
the world,
while yet realizing the
fictional
aspect of our creation.
Though they may sound
harsh,
these two words – achronic
and atopic -
illuminate with their
precision.
No time, no place,
no when, no where.
In order to explore this,
we may have to stop
following
our tendency to be an
observer,
our tendency to observe
our experiences, our
thoughts.
If we set ourselves up as
an observer
of our thoughts we could
locate them
with respect to this
observer.
If we are just thoughts –
if we are
the arising thoughts –
where could
we locate them, and with
respect to what?
can we say a thought is here, or there?
Here or there
is the thought that we are
when here arises
with the simultaneous
impossibility of there
-
it has no meaning.
This may be said to be
true
for all experiences.
Tasting, thinking, smelling, hearing,
Tasting, thinking, smelling, hearing,
tactile sensation, seeing
-
the simplicity of our
experiences -
where do they happen?
The seeing itself, and not
the object -
where does seeing happen?
Can we say it’s happening
in front of us,
or behind us, or inside,
or outside,
and with respect to what?
We may inquire of all our
senses
in this way without
building
any sense of location.
Can I just walk, just
experience
bodily sensations, and not
invent stories?
If there is nothing other
than bodily sensations, in which space could I move?
Toward what, away from
what?
In our work, we don’t need
to cultivate
the attempt to be mindful
of something specific.
Just walking, just seeing,
just hearing – we don’t
need to try to walk or see or hear.
maybe we’re as absent as
the characters in
Blanchot’s novel:
we are nowhere.
Yet that is
to be questioned.
.............
In trying to find anything
.............
In trying to find anything
real in the form that
appears,
one is left with nothing,
yet this nothing
allows form to appear,
the flowers to blossom.
The dreamlike can play,
interact,
gather together and
separate.
.................
In observing there is just simply presence.
.................
In observing there is just simply presence.
A presence without anyone.
When the action
When the action
not subject to aim rests
in itself, where is
separation?
In wholly doing something
-
acting totally in oneness
-
there’s no aim, no result,
no I, no actor,
only act.
............
Mental images are traces -
............
Mental images are traces -
traces, habitual patterns.
As we need to rest
on something which seems
stable,
firm, we cling to traces.
On the traceless,
therefore
timeless,
we project the notion of
time and duration.
To find comfort and
security
we make something
out of an ungraspable
reality.
We grasp so quickly
conceptualize so
conditionally,
that we’re never aware of
the traceless.
Holding on to an
experience by means of a concept,
I solidity it:
I make it into something,
a something
that can be opposed to something
else.
........
We don’t need to read
fiction
to be in a dream-like
reality
as there is no real world
behind the dream,
behind the traces.
........
We live in an illusory
world,
an illusory world that we
share,
an illusion kept alive
by tacit convention.
The reality of our
everyday life
depends on shared
conditionality -
it is a common dream,
not a private one.
Can you move your hand
in a circular way, not
holding on
to traces;
can you move your hand
and not be drawn in by the
notion of a circle? Let’s explore.
Know when you are dealing
with traces.
Know when you are just
experiencing.
................
the Buddha says:
In seeing, just seeing; in hearing, just hearing;
In seeing, just seeing; in hearing, just hearing;
in tasting, just tasting;
in smelling, just smelling;
in feeling, just feeling;
in thinking, just thinking.
It was enough for the
Brahmin,
who awakened.
But what does
just mean?
It means the elimination
of the reality of a
tangible subject
and tangible object;
it leaves seeing whole.
A seeing in which the
totality
of my being participates..
A seeing beyond any notion
of inside and outside.
A seeing without a seer;
a seeing without anything
seen.
it leaves intimacy,
an intimacy leaving only
presence,
only awareness.
How is I-less seeing,
I-less hearing
possible?
When wind blows,
do we look for a blower
apart form the blowing?
When fire burns,
do we look for burner
apart from the fire?
Can’t I see the way the
wind blows
can feel the way fire
burns when I lie
on the floor with my eyes closed?
Is there any rester apart
from the resting?
is there any feeler
separated
from feeling bodily
sensations?
The sense of being at rest
on the floor
or on one’s back
creates separation,
creates duality.
Is the notion of floor,
or the notion of back,
anything but
imagination, a construct
based
on the sensation of
hardness, of coldness?
A construct useful if
we’re to clean the floor, useful
if we need to protect our
back,