24th August 2003



Hiya B,


  Then how is the illusoriness perceived?

  By first understanding, what is illusoriness.

  This understanding will still be in the realm of the intellect and hence not an apperception (which is perceiving without a perceiver).

  A 1000 mile walk, starts from where one is, not where one should be.

  That is illusory, which needs an "other" to define itself.

  "Good" has no existential meaning on it's own, unless "bad" is defined.
  It is evil, which makes goodness..........good.

  One cannot exist without the other.

  And thus both "good" and "bad", are illusory concepts.

  The illusory ego (which I recall was the start of it all), is really the "me" entity, is it not?

  The term ego is used in different contexts and becomes a source of much confusion.

  Ego is the sense of identification with a particular physical form and the name attached to that form.
  Without this identification, the organism whether that of a "sage" or a "clown", .........will not survive a single second.

  Whereas the "me" entity, is the flavour in that identification with a particular body-mind organism,.........a flavour which is nothing but a sense of an independent self-entity, a "B", distinct and separated from all other organisms, that are cognized.

  Thus the "me-B", births the "you-not-B".

  And vice versa.

  The "me" births "mine" (my land, my religion, my son, my national flag, my spiritual understanding) and the "you" births "yours".

  It is this sense of separation which allows a relating to be possible between the "me" and the thousands of "you"(s) that the "me" comes along throughout a lifetime.

  Some of the relatings are longer in duration, a lifetime, some temporary, like paying the cashier in a shopping mall, or a failed marriage.

  Relatings which can be in the nature of "love", of "hatred", or "indifference".
  And the infinite shades and hues in-between them, .....each hue shifting to another with time and with the billions and billions of such relatings, ........the shimmering, dynamically changing mosaic, appears....which is Life, which is phenomenality.

  The key is to see that there is no "me", without a cognition of a "you",... separated from "me".

  One cannot exist without the other.

  And thus it is said to be illusory.

  "B's world", ...........is cognized by "B",....... the cognition arising from this prevailing sense that "B" exists, as an independent subject-entity, separated from the "cognized world".

  Without this sense of separation, there is no separated "thingies".

  Thus when there is no "B", temporary as when some one punches your lights out, or for a longer duration, viz in the state of deep-sleep, when even dreaming ceases, .........there is no "B's world".

  No "B", no "B's world, the world made of B's loved ones, unloved ones, strangers",.....nothing nada.

  All that drama, that ethos that pathos, all the profoundity, all the profanity, all the sublime, all the ridiculous, ....which characterizes your world,........nada, nix, vanishes as vaporware, .......every time when "B" vanishes.

  And is re-born, when "B" is re-born.

  In this analogy, the re-birth of "B" is when deep-sleep state "becomes" the sleep-dream state or the waking-dream state.

  However, the dying and the re-birthing of "B" and consequentially "B's world", .....happens moment to moment to moment.

  All this is still intellectual.

  For no reason whatsoever, hence it has been termed as the gift of Grace, .....the energy pattern which is the organism labeled "B", .......may fall on itself and explode the very "flavour" of the notion of the "me-B".

  (Remember "B" being a notion,... can do nothing, except feel elated when things happen as per it's desires or feel pissed off, when they don't.)

  But Grace sometimes, in some rare manifest object, undergoes a metanousis, when an investigation of the "me-entity" happens.

  What is this sense of "me-entity"?

  Is it not a prevailing belief system, revolving around the strands....

  -It is "B" which thinks, ..ergo "B" IS.

  -It is "B" which discerns, discriminates, chooses among thoughts, hence decides,.........ergo "B" IS.

  -It is "B" which acts on the decision (whatever be the form of the action),.......ergo "B" IS.

  -It is "B" which succeeds with his actions, judged against a a priori agenda,........ergo "B" IS.

  -It is "B" which fails with his actions, judged once again against the same a priori agenda,........ergo "B" IS.

  The concretization of these strands, is the sense of the "me-B"

  Thus, the "me" is nothing but the prevailing sense of personal doership.

  Invite an investigation, to unravel one thought, one decision, one action, one success, one failure, ..........which hereto you B, have believed to be emanating from your independent volition.

  And the intellect understanding may "transform" into an apperception.


    I don't understand the point of discussing an enlightened state of mind (or pointing to it) when the question "how can I be in it" is always answered with something like "you can be in it by being in it".


  There is no point in discussing the enlightened state of mind, because no such thing has any existential reality.

  The mind is itself a notion, inferred from the mnemonic impressions of past experiences.

  Present your mind B, I promise to make it enlightened in this very moment.
  An unconditional money back guaranteed offer.


    I'm not trying to express anger or frustration about this, but it seems to me that no one wants to address the "dropping away" of the individual point of view.  Or am I missing something?

  There must be something to this.  I mean, there must be some process that an organism undergoes to change.  Whether it can "do" anything, make any effort, to bring this change about, I don't know.  I don't think that that is what I mean by asking "how".

  Very good questions B.

  Park them somewhere, and if you are still inclined after the investigation of the "me-B", they can be re-visited.
  That is assuming you are moved to investigate the entity "me-B". 

  There is a biological organism, merrily carrying on some of the most complex bio-chemical operations, without you, B.

  That organism is an out-growth of a sperm and an ovum doing the hip-hop at some point of time.

  The essence of sperm and a ovum is the food ingested, whether your parents were a non-veggie, veggie, vegan or cannibals.

  The essence of food are the 5 fundamental elements of nature.
  At "death" of the organism, whether from a disease, or old age or an accident, .......either through cremation, or through burial, or through being fed to the vultures (if you were a Zorastrian), ........the organism returns back to the elements from which it

  Dust to dust.

  Nothing lost, nothing gained, just changing gestalts of objective expressings

  So what is to change?

  Let me put it another way.  If someone has some sort of tragic life experience, he or she may be jolted into a new perception of life.


  That again will be another conditioned "take" on Life.
  Nothing much of import.


    That person may "wake up" as a result of that experience.  But if one has no such experience, is it still possible to "wake up"?


  That "wake-up" which is associated with an experience, .............no matter how profound, .........is worth nothing.


    If so, what is going to bring about that awakening?



  And even the decision to cease whatever you were doing hoping to awaken, .....even that will not get you any brownie points.

  The apperception lies in the very problem that appears to have risen.

  Assuming the existential reality of what is merely a notion, ........ of "someone"  who is to awaken.

  That is why it's said..............the hilarity of awakening,....the awakening of that which was never asleep and that put to rest which never was.


    Meditating on one's breathing, thinking about the question "who am I?" all the time, striving to serve others with love all day long, watching how one creates separation of "me" and "other"?


  "You" do not create that separation.

  You can actually do nothing, ................for "you",....... is the prevailing sense of a self, consequentially arising from a sense of separation prevailing in a particular conditioned psycho-somatic apparatus.

  "You" did not create the sense of separation.

  "You" will not un-create it, either.

  "B" does not live.

  "B" is...............lived.

  In the moment.

  Exactly as living is happening through the apparatus, labeled "B", in that moment.

  Moment to moment to moment.


    Is there really any kind of answer to this question?



  The dissolution of the question, any question, does not lie in an answer, any answer, no matter which icon of authority supplies the answer.

  The dissolution of the question, can only happen in the dissolution of the "questioner",...... to whom the question is of relevance.


  If the illusoriness of the illusion has been apperceived, then the "problem" is no longer there so no question of "how" would arise.

  But there is a problem, isn't there?  Whether the problem is an illusion or not, one is trying to solve it.


  I do not deny your anguish, your quest, your question, B.

  All I am saying it's like trying to lift yourself by your bootstraps.

  You are the very weight, you are trying to lift.

  Now whether you use, Tantra, Sufi whirling, or some esoteric meditation technique, or go about being the epitome of charity for the poor and downtrodden, ........can you ever succeed in lifting yourself by your boot-straps?

  The domain of the "problem" (none actually exists, just hoopla going on),........is mentation.

  It's not a physical issue at all.

  Your physical body couldn't care too hoots,.......... for Enlightenment, Moksha, or fana, or baqa or awakening or any of the usual bromides.


    Does it really matter if the problem is an illusion?  It's still real.  Does it assist that person to tell him or her that the problem is a shadow?

  That is assuming, there is a cognition of a person who needs to be assisted.


  If the "how" is relevant to an individual and that person's sense of being a separate "I" is an illusion, does it change anything for that person to point out that the "how" is being asked by an illusion?

  Maybe not.

  Either are nuances of the hoopla.




content page