So often the case, eh? Somebody writes something, and when you read it you have a sense that it could be An Answer: that if you could go-ahead and do this, then... well, things would be a lot better, for sure.
So then you try it. You try to do what the person suggested doing. And... Well, it doesn't happen; but instead you just lapse into the usual stuff.
Example: The following striking passage is excerpted in Jon Flint's collection of William Arkle's later writings. It comes from a letter than Flint received from Arkle in 1997 (somewhat edited by me, for clarity):
Where do the succession of thoughts arise from within oneself - thought and feelings and attention? Most of the time these are conditioned as a response to what goes on outside.
But when we are alone (in the dark, or eyes closed) and there is nothing special on our mind, and we are free for a while to do as we like with out own conscious world... What do we do with our thinking then?
Do we seek other stimulus, go to sleep, or... Do we create the "now" that we most like to be with?
If we do the latter; it spreads into the future "nows", so that (in a Godlike way) we take charge of our "nows" and call to ourselves the very best ones.
Our present attention is in fact, I believe, a Godlike command to the ethers; and our Great Friend [God] wants us to learn to use it well, beautifully, playfully - and for Him and all other delighting. And of our own fulfilling with value, purpose and joy.
This is the only everlasting purpose after all...
William Arkle is making a very concrete suggestion here, about how we might best use our free-est moments. It is clear enough what he means in a negative way, of what we shouldn't do - that we ought not simply to seek further external stimulation of our thinking. And we ought not to seek the oblivion of not-thinking by sleeping, or doing some kinds of meditation, or maybe seeking some kind of intoxication.
The difficulty is Arkle's positive injunction to "create the "now" that we most like to be with".
The suggestion is that our "everlasting purpose" is best served by using our thinking creatively, like God, to create in our conscious here-and-now thinking, the best "now" of which we can conceive. he goes on to say that, if this can be done, it will have a general effect via "the ethers" - which I take to refer to the world of thinking shared by many Beings, and that shapes the world.
I can well believe this... If we can indeed do as Arkle suggests and "create the "now" that we most like to be with".
For me, at least, that is one of those things that sounds simply and perfectly do-able, until I actually try to do it - when my thinking reverts to its usual mundane habits of responding to external stimuli, or grinding away at dull stuff; or soon begins to switch-off towards passive and dreamlike associations, or even actual sleep.
The deep problem seems to be that I cannot get a specific purchase on my thinking, a basis for the desired way of thinking. The instructions are too vague and general; yet any specific instructions of what to think-about and how, become merely more of the usual mundane stuff.
I find that what I am hoping-for is a positive transformation and elevation of thinking, but that I am not properly motivated to achieve this.
Wanting it isn't enough, and may even be (seems to be) counter-productive.
Indeed; I do not believe there is a general answer to this problem. I don't think there is, or can be, any plan for "how to do" what we most want to be done.
Why? Probably because we are talking about creativity; which must be motivated by love - and that isn't something that can be ordered-up on demand.
My best suggestion - which I can but seldom actually follow myself - is to locate love in our-selves, some basis of actual love; and start thinking from that love. Not by statically stopping with that love (not just contemplating it, not clinging to it); but instead thinking "dynamically", purposively, while "holding-onto" that love.
In practice, however, I just can't seem to do it; at least, not whenever I want to.
