Going to the Land Beyond Belief~Confabulating Oz

Becoming Aware of the Mind, by Andrew Gable

Becoming Aware of the Mind, by Andrew Gable

Thought persists, but does our belief in it, and identification with it, have to continue as a persistent way of living, albeit incoherently? Is there a gap in which to look and see–does thought really tells us the way life is and who we are? Or is it the very thing that creates what life appears to be, and all the changing ideas we have of ourselves?

Inspired by the book, Thought as a System, by David Bohm, I’m proposing opportunities to look as a group at the mechanics of thought, how it both plays tricks and doles out treats—moment by moment.

Thought/mind is a system. It has its fixations, reflexes, coherence and incoherence. It is in cahoots with the body, also part of the reflexive system, that appears to make thoughts evidence of truth, of identity–this opinion is true; it is mine; it is who I am. I know because I feel it.

Thinking in and of itself is not the problem. It’s useful, necessary, and highly creative. But incoherent thinking can be observed, and perhaps in that seeing, become coherent, servant rather than master.

I’m starting a series of group dialogues on the incoherent tendencies of thought and how that incoherence manifests as feeling as if what thought says were true, and seemingly coherent. It can mean the difference between being at war or in peace with ourselves and the world, which are one and the same–in thought.

Attention to thought is not exclusive to nonduality. Where is Buddhism, Christianity, Advaita, Zen, but in the objectifying, the structural nature of thought? Incoherent thinking impacts everything from politics, the environment, world hunger, family, relationship, and my/your life as it is lived day to day.

Perhaps we won’t have so many “problems” to solve, if we are able to watch how the problem is created. This ongoing dialogue could be thought of as a kind of “thinking school,” where the separative, divisive, personalized tendency of thought is seen for what it is, in the crucible of the group, from the premise of inseparability. One mind, not my mind and his/her mind.

There will be three 1 1/2 hr dialogues per week, to accommodate time differences. They will be held on Tuesdays at 9:30 am, and Thursdays at 1:00 pm, and Saturdays at 9:30—all MDT, beginning January 6th, 2015.  The idea is to look at this on a weekly basis until Toto pulls the curtain aside and there is less smoke and mirrors and more-kindly-old-man-from-Kansas running the show. The kingdom of Oz is not———what we think it is.

Having decided that looking at incoherent thought is absolutely separate from and more important than the money charged or the money to be made, I am changing the price structure, literally reducing the cost by over 50%. Because I do have to show up, keep track of who is coming,  send out invites, answer questions, update the website with developments, and other administrative costs, the price has been reduced to $40 per month, for 1 call a week, which will add up to 4 calls per month, 6 hours of dialogue time. depending upon the month. These dialogues will be ongoing, for as long as interest (and/or the tendency towards incoherent thinking) continues.

If interested in exploring and exposing the mechanics of mind through group dialogue, please contact me at Colette.kelso@gmail.com The book, Thought As A System, by David Bohm, is available as a downloadable pdf here–in addition to the link above. More details can be found on the Thinking Dialogues page.

Beyond the Yellow Brick Road ~ eone Film

Beyond the Yellow Brick Road ~ eone Film


Deepest Peace Videos Parts 2 & 3: Thoughts, Clouds–and Other People

In The Deepest Peace video, Part 1: Beginnings, the suggestion is of a better way to live, to be. We are not who we think we are–because we are not our thoughts. Part 2: Thoughts, Clouds is a way of beginning to discover that perhaps there is some truth to this idea. It just might be true that we/you/I are/am not the limited version of “me” that these thoughts seem to suggest. It is also a way to look to see how this limited, always insufficient, “me” is continually (apparently) being recreated. The suggestion in Part 2 is to observe, rather than identify with, thought. More importantly, if thought is not the arbiter of identity–who am I? And if, in fact, that cannot be answered satisfactorily–what is it that is here, in between, prior to, or after thought ceases to be the major player in this me/world construct? What is the nature of the space in which these thoughts simply come and go? What happens when we stop paying attention to the thoughts, and start paying attention to the silent, still empty room through which they continually seem to appear and pass through? Have a look and see for yourself:

In Part 3: Other People, we can begin to see how this imagined, ever-changing self-image actually impacts (creates) the world in which we live, how the peace and/or conflict we experience in our relationships are also thought-created. The people we love and hate are the projections we put onto them based on the false, and inadequate sense of “me” as a separate, isolated, and vulnerable self. They are not who we think they are either. This leads to the insight pointed to in the words, “Be the change you wish to see in the world,” by Mahatma Gandhi. We can only come to truly know others when we know who we really are. How do these others look to you, when viewed from a perspective of openness and not-knowing–simply observing without thoughts that discriminate?

Be the peace. Thank you for watching, and considering.

(Due to copyright issues, you may not be able to view this video on your phone or tablet. I was able to view it from my phone and onto my TV through a streaming video player.)


Relationship: Seeing Innocence

thsud00zWhat is Relationship? If you look at it from the “No two people ever met,” perspective (from Byron Katie), it gets stranger and stranger, but perhaps only better and better.

Whether it is relationship with family members, friends, coworkers or lovers, is there an element of defend and protect, or cherish and keep? Both of these interchangeable stances create the intractable difficulties we experience in all our relationships. Is it true that “Hell is other people?” Or, if you take out the judgment, expectation, fear, and all our assumptions about who all these other people are, what’s left?

Continue reading