Beautifully stated, Mark. I especially like what you said here:

"It is ironic that we think of our "selves" as the most intelligent species, but there is a big difference between an active, responsive intelligence and a mind that basically functions on conditioning."

Yes Alan, I am familiar with Adyashanti and the backward step. In this turning inward our consciousness is really a manifestation of natural intelligence, and other qualities such as compassion and wholeness are naturally there as well. It is ironic that we think of our "selves" as the most intelligent species, but there is a big difference between an active, responsive intelligence and a mind that basically functions on conditioning. And of course, conditioning requires that we are reinforced by external inputs, (and we know those are largely artificially created) which is of course the exact opposite of the kind of introspection pointed to by the backward step.

So not only is there simplicity, but there is _actual_ intelligence that is more functional and truly inclusive when we return to our true nature.

Mark, what you're describing reminds me of something I heard from Adyashanti recently (his videos are also on this site), and that is that in Zen, there is what's known as the "backwards step", a step backwards and away from complexity and what is "known", and toward the observer itself. It is a move toward unknowing, rather than knowing, and in doing so it paradoxically reveals the simplicity behind the intellectual and philosophical content and dramas.

This is appealing, and is contrary to our whole collective thrust toward increasing complexity.

Alan, I am not [yet] familiar with Duane Elgins work, but I believe there are videos right here on this site which I will definitely look at.

I suppose it may be the difference between individualism and individuation. The latter involves integration and unification, whereas often we see individualism is actually a case of arrested development which has not reached a new level of maturation. Of course, if the majority of people and therefore the collective consciousness has not developed to a point where we can take responsibility for ourselves, then it is understandable why we are in this predicament.

So I think it's important to distinguish between philosophical outlook and actual maturation. Often it seems people simply like the philosophy of oneness, and they may be intellectually inclined, but on the other hand there are those who do not have the same level of sophistication in their world view who nevertheless do mature beyond individual concern. (perhaps even beyond their peers who do indulge in philosophical outlooks) Just as affection is a natural expression of love, perhaps it is largely a matter of allowing ourselves to move on in our development rather than grasping at new or different ideas.

Thanks, Mark, for elaborating. It's interesting to muse about how much family units or tribes that experience love spontaneously and naturally probably take it for granted as a normal, cohesive attribute...and how much those who don't have it miss it and probably don't fully recognize what they're missing.

If we've been on a trajectory toward increased individualism over the centuries (millenia), it would seem that love is what has suffered in the process (or, we've suffered its loss, to be more precise). Duane Elgin's work comes to mind.

And, as you say, it appears our modern perspective that's evolved in the process of this thrust toward self has resulted in a grand mis-perception, a failure to see our underlying oneness. Funny that as Father Luna says the more one goes inward the more one gets to infinite oneness, when the more Western people have gone "inward" (away from family/group), the more isolated we've become. Now, we have to move further and authentically "inward" beyond our ego/persona...and discover that our true "self" is in fact co-extensive with "other"...we've never been separate all along! How ironic.

Well Alan, I guess we need to distinguish between opening the heart and acting from the heart. It would seem traditionally we already do this to some extent, perhaps with the family unit or even our tribe - if there is more of a collective focus than an individual one. Of course this is assuming the family unit is not dysfunctional, and that in spite of problems there is a sense of unconditional love. In that context love is really just the way it is, nobody would expect it to NOT be there - but these days we tend to think in terms of having to get love in some way, from someone else. But love is really the underlying thread that makes up the fabric of the family or tribe, it doesn't belong to anyone so it's not really something anyone give to anyone else. It _does_ come from this openness which naturally prompts us to act from the heart, otherwise there would be no family or tribe, and in one sense you might even say no individual organism.

So I guess I'd have to say it's really a mistaken assumption about the nature of love. It isn't that we are not getting the love we need from others, but the whole view of us as separate from others obscure the reality of how things are interdependent in the first place. No doubt spiritual seekers are comfortable with peers on a journey, but of course what they find to be powerful is that recognition of the underlying oneness that is already there.

Yes, Mark, I think you definitely describe the paradox, both of the heart and of our relationship to the world in general: we're intrinsically connected, indeed one with, but we don't recognize this truth, so we're left with a profound dissatisfaction. And we search endlessly for ways to fill the hole in our beings, when in fact there is nothing to fill it that we don't already have, if we were only to open our hearts and recognize the truth of our real identity.

What do you think keeps us from opening our hearts? What keeps us looking externally (or even internally) in search of what we already are?

As he eluded to earlier in the video, in spite of the advantage of global communication there is a longing for intimacy. It would seem that in spite of having tools such as the internet and all these social networking sites, most continue to find themselves longing for something deeper. It stands to reason that we are able to relate from a deeper place if we are in touch with the same depth within ourselves, although this is not just an interpersonal dynamic. We have been conditioned to think of ourselves as bodies separate from each other and the rest of the world for so long that we have forgotten it is actually quite natural to relate to everything in the world from our hearts. As it is, many find it challenging to relate to other people from this depth of intimacy, let alone the rest of the world. So yes, it only seems like a paradox, but in reality we are never separate from our heart - but we may need to open it.