Composition, balance, appropriate action

It happened: 5 days of meditation in Nemours, France. “What is” up?

It seems like everything is a composition, and action is appropriate within that composition. The latter inviting change through the former. Re-membering (that is, re-integrating into the self) that composition time and time again is, seemingly, a way to connect to “what is.” Appropriately, mindfulness translates Pali sati, Sanskrit smṛti, which has remembering as one of its meanings.

Action is additive, too. Information as well.¹ I realized that when I am lost in thought, and noticed it, I regain wider consciousness at the cost of the thoughts (like a binary switch). It seems better, however, to integrate the thoughts in the wider point of view (that is, add-in the new information, not replace the thoughts by it).

Coming back to appropriate action, this relates to the issue of morality and ethics. Both are ultimately systems of thought, or at least so in the Western spheres, and therefore ultimately an abstraction of what’s there. Helpful, but the more I meditate, the more that my actions take ethical or moral form automatically, without reference to any such system. This was also pointed out by Dewey and Alexander, by the way.

Everything in its right place. Composition. The concept of balance; on the planes of mind, body and spirit. It’s kinda obvious that it should be this way, but I feel more is to be understood here. For example, we could say that if the system is out of balance, tension rises, or even disease if sustained too long. This isn’t controversial a statement like it used to be. But here is a more controversial one. Do the disease and tension bring about a new balance too then? Is it in fact a more profitable, truer way of looking at it that in fact we are never out of balance?

Go to next post ▤ in vault series.