August 19th ~ My mind observes loneliness, and avoids it, runs away from it. But if I do not run away from it, is there a division, is there a separation, is there an observer watching loneliness? Or, is there only a state of loneliness, my mind itself being empty, lonely? Not that there is an observer who knows that there is loneliness. I think this is important to grasp, swiftly, not verbalizing too much. We say now, “I am envious, and I want to get rid of envy,” so there is an observer and the observed; the observer wishes to get rid of that which he observes. But is the observer not the same as the observed? It is the mind itself that has created the envy, and so the mind cannot do anything about envy. So, my mind observes loneliness; the thinker is aware that he is lonely. But by remaining with it, being fully in contact, which is, not to run away from it, not to translate and all the rest of it, then, is there a difference between the observer and the observed? Or is there only one state, which is the mind itself is lonely, empty? Not that the mind observes itself as being empty, but mind itself is empty. Then, can the mind, being aware that it itself is empty, and that whatever its endeavor, any movement away from that emptiness is merely an escape, a dependence; can the mind put away all dependence and be what it is, completely empty, completely lonely? And it it is in that state, is there not freedom from all dependence, from all attachment?
November 19th, 2019 ~ When we stay with “what is”, “what is” is a fact. What is is not a problem. It is a fact. Facts are facts. We can’t really doing anything about it. They are not to be solved, per se, like problems are. Facts are not really separate, are they? We treat problems as separate, having to be dealt with. With facts, it feels more appropriate to accept; to allow. Loneliness is a fact, not a problem to be dealt with. Loneliness, like other challenging emotions, are so easy to gloss over. We do things. We stay busy to avoid them.