As the World Collapses Around You, Just Remember, It Doesn't Exist.

As the world begins to crumble around you, it might be a good time to consider that it’s not there.




However, your experience of the world is 'there' and if the world is nothing but pure direct experience, then you should have no difficulties altering that state of 'thereness.' However, if you continue to dissociate from your experience of 'world,' as the advocates of egolessness or ego-self abnegation would have you do, then you may find it difficult to reconstruct your experience of “world.” Therefore, unfortunately, you will force your 'self' to experience the suffering inherent in a collapse.

Once you apply external coordinates (time/space) to an experience, you essentially experience it as 'outside' consciousness. Yet, there is only conscious experience and you refer to this as your “world” and you continue to slice and dice your experience through concepts such as “body” "self" and “mind.”

There really is no such thing as “mind,” nor is there any such thing as “thought.” In fact, there is no “self” only an experience of self, mind and thought. We seem quite adept at dissociating from our experience, even though experience is all we have to go on. Martin Heidegger labeled experience as “Dasein” or Being-in-the-world. He hyphenated this phrase to denote a unity to experience and this is because without experience, or “world,” there is no Being at all. Being will devise all manner of experiences to know its Being and 'self' is merely one experience out of many.

Essentially there is NO 'world' only an experience you linguistically symbolize as 'world' and you further assign your experience to a 'mind' which divides up the wholeness or oneness. However, Being is always experiencing something, since not to experience is not to Be. But ‘what’ that experience is, or could be, is open to conjecture (or construction). In addition, there are no coordinates to experience, or 'place' that experience seems to happen, like mind, body, self or world, there is only experience as a whole.

The law of attraction folks got it wrong. You don’t attract physicality or cause objects to materialize through "intention." The only thing you intend is “experience.” Actually, the more operable phrase is “construct.” You seek to augment and embellish your experience of 'self' through experiences of 'world.'

Experiences are constructs and you do construct your experience, simply because YOU constructed your 'self' and you continue to do so everyday. Problem is, that you construct your ‘self’ from past experience, which is the building block of your experience of ego-self. Therefore, to reconstruct experience, you must first dissociate from the past, or deconstruct it.

But you could never fully dissociate from the past simply because to do so would deconstruct YOU and this is because “you” are entirely constructed from the past. But the past was constructed by you as well and this circularity is the paradox that never ends.

Each preceding day provides coordinates, or reference points, from which to experience another “day” and the self refers to this as “time.” Time is nothing more than experiencing the process of self-construction. You are nothing but an infinite process of conceptual addition and subtraction.

However, the paradoxical conundrum is that the more you subtract from your self-concept, the more you add and the more you add the more you subtract.

The game is infinite. So get comfortable with it, since there is NO END.

Yet, the self seeks for some strange finite conclusion, denying that any conclusion must end the 'self.' Fortunately your being knows that there is no end, so "no worry, be happy."

However, the degree of reconstruction you perform on your experience will be directly correlated with the degree of deconstruction you facilitate upon your ego-self-construct. You cannot just “intend” reality to materialize, because your self-construct will delay such reconstruction based on the numerous rigid concepts that make up your self-construct. Self essentially resists the actions or intentions of itself, due to past intentions. This resistance is referred to, by many ancient texts, as "fear." Overcoming fear is your only objective as a 'self' because self was constructed in response to fear.

Deconstruct the ‘self’ and you reconstruct the world, but you will never transcend or leave the 'self' that is YOU. But you will transform the experience of YOU, which deconstructs your experience of “world,” simply because your experience of “you” and the “world” is a unified experience and there can be no division and there is no "you" separate from 'world.'

To save the world requires you deconstruct your experience of 'self' in order to change your experience of world, simply because there is nothing but experience.

So...

Good Luck With That!
mikeS

Post-Traumatic vs. Post-Ecstatic Symptomology

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS SYMPTOMS
(Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders)

1. Exposure to a traumatic experience.
2. Persistent re-experience (e.g. flashbacks, nightmares).
3. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma (e.g. inability to talk about things related to the experience, avoidance of things and discussions that might trigger flashbacks and reexperiencing symptoms, fear of losing control).
4. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (e.g. difficulty falling or staying asleep, anger and hypervigilance toward avoiding trauma).
5. Duration of symptoms more than 1 month. Symptoms may diminish in time.
6. Significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (e.g. problems with work and relationships.)

POST-ECSTATIC STRESS SYMPTOMS

1. Exposure to ecstatic experience.
2. Persistent reexperience (heightened neurochemical states, deep periods of reverie).
3. Persistent pursuit of stimuli associated with the ecstasy (talks about nothing but things related to experience, seeks out things and discussions that might trigger flashbacks and reexperiencing symptoms, desires loss of control through ecstasy).
4. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (e.g. difficulty falling asleep, acute sensations of joy, hypervigilant toward maintaining ecstasy).
5. Duration of symptoms more than 1 month. Symptoms may diminish in-time.
6. Significant improvement in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (minimal to no conflict experienced in work or relationships).

Both of these 'stress-states' (stress is both positive and negative) are ego-self generated and are interpretations based after an experience (post), either traumatic or ecstatic. Based on Freud's pain-pleasure principle, the egos-self will actively seek to avoid pain or pursue pleasure and the empirical actions and behaviors will be symptomatic of either an ecstatic or traumatic experience.

Of course, these symptoms are based on extreme trauma or extreme ecstasy and no one will meet these symptoms in a classic or exact sense, but many do come close. Every ego-self will present with some of these symptoms contingent on whether the experience was a violently traumatic experience or a heightened ecstatic experience. The intensity of the experience will determine the intensity of egoic interpretation.

However, as a conceptual construct of consciousness, the ego-self actually constructs experiences through which it can further interpret itself as "real."

It seems this is why we all tend to equally swing both ways. Too much ecstasy and the ego cannot continue as a dualistic reality. Too much trauma and the ego ("you") would not want to continue as a reality and would thus seek a way out (suicide).

Give Up Your Plans to "Awaken" (and "awaken")

To plan your “awakening” is to create defenses against "awakening."

The idea that YOU know the way is absurd, simply because your best thinking got you here and that’s because your best thinking is most likely somebody else’s.

Recycled thinking means that your plans of “awakening” are recycled plans and this is exactly what the world suffers from and it’s called “repetition compulsion.” The ego-self has a need to repeat the past simply because without a past to refer to, it (“you”) could not exist.

When you adopt another's plan you adopt their fear and your defensiveness proves this true. The world is nothing but centuries of recycled fear. Just look around you and notice how, with all the incessant planning and preparation, nothing ever really changes. Maybe we should just give up all our grand plans and see what happens. Just be prepared for a SURPRISE!

By Giving up your plans, you give up your defenses.

If there is nothing to defend against, then there is nothing to fear. This is because, once you plan, you will then seek to defend your plans from doubt. Yet, ironically, to defend your plan is to doubt that your plan is the way, otherwise, why defend it. If it was the way, it would need no defense from doubt.

Fear causes us to defend against doubt, because your plan is to “know” and doubt is not part of that plan. This is why doubt is considered negative, and defended against, while the planning goes on, ad nauseum.

I merely suggest the inverse, that doubt is the fuel that will take you "there," but only when you give up your notions of what "there" is.

However, the ego demands anchoring to a plan and that plan must come from the world, since where else would you get your schemes of "awakening." As if there is a plan to finding God and that plan is available in the world. Ha!

Adopt a spiritual ideology and you have adopted a plan and most likely it's someone else’s plan.

Obviously, we adopt the plans of others primarily because we fear we are much too weak and inadequate to devise our own plan. Of course, that’s part of the plan, because if you considered yourself powerful enough to know God, you would find your own way "there." To be fearless is to surrender their plans and make your own, but, of course that would assert your power by denying your weakness.

The plan you adopt from another was never theirs to begin with.

They adopted it from someone previously, who adopted it from another, who adopted it from another, on and on, through 'time.' So who constructed the first plan? Buddha, Jesus? Nope. Because history tends to show that most of those plans, or paradigms, existed, in some form or another, before the devout ones gave lip-service to them and this lends credence to the suggestion that Jesus and Buddha never really existed.

It’s just that we needed someone to give us the map, since the map could not have just materialized in our thinking, from absolutely nowhere. Yet, maybe it did. Nevertheless, the ego-self demands another ego-self, wiser and more superior, to provide direction.

There are many plans available to help you negotiate a difficult world and many are good plans. So feel free to use those plans. However, if you plan to transcend the world, or the ego-self which constructed it, then recognize that every plan found IN the world only reinforces your bondage to the world.

I would suggest that if you make your own plans, that you simply allow in your plans this clause: “all plans subject to change without prior notice.”

That way you won’t have to defend against your doubt and you can live joyously through it. Because, make no mistake, you will never be free of doubt. But that’s okay, since doubt has always been part of the plan. To be completely free of doubt means there’s nothing more to learn and all is known. But that would deny that we're all playing an infinite game.

I always find it interesting how the ego compromises with the infinite (or eternal) by determining a fixed point in time for which it can be known. I’m sure that those who are “awakened” clearly recognize this contradiction. However, the "unawakened" will probably continue to plan in preparation for what someone else predicted as “true.”

“Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends!”
- ELP

Thanks,
mikeS

Will You Be The "Hundreth Monkey"?

I read many spiritual blogs and yesterday I came across this quote:

“It is our nature to become enlightened; that is why enlightenment is inevitable for every single human being without exception.”

At first glance, this seems like just another motivational statement of enlightenment, not unlike many others. However, I believe that this statement, and millions like it, need be injected with doubt and questioned (because that's how the game is played).

Although the statement asserts that enlightenment is guaranteed (and who'd disagree with that), it asserts that this guarantee is for “every single human being.”

Single human beings? Can single human beings be enlightened?

Ha! I can't avoid the image of a psychological conveyor belt, as if one by one, mind after mind, we will all, in due time, attain our blessed “enlightenment.” So who was first monkey and, more importantly, who will be the hundredth monkey? If new “souls” are born daily, then they too, must “inevitably” be enlightened. Will there ever be a “time’ when we are all equally enlightened at once? And will this include the ones before and after?

In the meantime, it seems we have a world of inequality with some enlightened and some not and this appears no different from all the other delusional paradigms we have invested in as ‘truth.’ Clearly, a ‘single’ ego, invested in a separate individual identity, will see individual awakening as true. This is fine on face value, but you may need to see "us" as awakening, simply because there is NO “you” or “me.”

I'm not saying that concepts of enlightenment aren't useful, but until the hundredth monkey receives the transfer, no 'one' is enlightened. Until that ‘time,’ we will only have experiences in time, but NO awakening can be possible until ALL ARE awake. Therefore, nobody is “enlightened” until we ALL ARE.

Sorry to say, but that grand experience you had, even though it was certainly a whopper, was no "awakening."

Obviously, many egos will revolt against such a proposition as they struggle and sacrifice for many years to have their desired moment of enlightenment. However, even though these aspirants will die without it, their efforts are not wasted as their input is collected and saved.

Nothing leaves consciousness…ever. This is why there is NO such thing as death. Nothing leaves or ends in infinite consciousness and absolutely everything is shared.

When all monkeys share it, they will all be increased by a multiplicity of ONE.


However, as long as “single human beings” seek to be free, we all must remain imprisoned in our concept of separation. Oneness is not possible to the individual. But until we believe that freedom is only possible through another, I imagine “single human beings” will continue to believe they can be free alone.

But that's absurd...

You can’t reach the “kingdom” by your 'self.' So stop searching alone and join hands (minds) with another monkey.

CONVERSATIONS WITH EGO: Do You Want Fame or "Awakening"?

Mike: Let’s just forget about that whole “awakening” thing, shall we.

ego: But, Mike, I thought we agreed that we were “awakened”

Mike: Yea, I know…but I don’t really feel “awakened” so I guess I’m just fooling myself.

ego: How are we supposed to feel?

Mike: Um…'blissful,' I guess…at least that’s what Eckhart Tolle said on Oprah.

ego: So is Eckhart Tolle always blissful?

Mike: Hmmm…I dunno.... I suppose he would have to be in order to be “awakened.”

ego: Well, maybe he isn’t always blissful, but his ego informs him that, in order to be “awakened” he must always be blissful... and so he is.

Mike: But wouldn’t that be like pretending to be something that you’re not?

ego: Maybe you’re pretending that you’re NOT awakened?

Mike: But I’m not!

ego: How do you know? Maybe you’ve always been “awakened,” but pretend you’re not. Maybe your whole life has been pretending NOT to be “awakened.”

Mike: But pretending means you know your awakened, but act like you’re not. I don’t know I’m awakened.

ego: But I thought we agreed that we are “awakened”? If we agree on "awakening," shouldn’t that be enough?

Mike: Well… maybe for us, but I doubt anybody else will buy into it.

ego: "Anybody else"? Now I’m confused…do you want to be “awakened” or famous? Which game are we playing, Mike?

AWAKENING: Before and After?

I used to participate in social forum threads discussing spiritual subjects. Unfortunately I tend to piss off the serious ones, so I no longer hang out there. However, I do continue to read the discussions and today I came across this quote regarding ‘awakening’ experiences:

“This really brings up the 'readiness' question, big time. How can we survive an encounter with something so profound and contrary to our ordinary experience that we can hardly remember it when we 'wake up' from 'the dream.' the profound experience of awakening or “being exposed to your truth.”

If you experience awakening as a “profound experience,” and contrary to "ordinary experience," how can you be "awakened"? Would an 'awakened' mind differentiate between a profound and an ordinary state of mind? If you discriminate between a time of ‘awakening’ and a time of ‘not awakened,’ then are you not simply making an egoic interpretation rooted in time?

How can there be a 'before' and an 'after' to absolute truth?

The ego makes dualistic contrasts, such as before and after or ordinary and profound, and this is commensurate with its capacity and need to judge. More likely your "profound experience" is simply egoic mind hoping that the neurochemical imbalances, experienced from hours of meditative trance, are the Big Shebang. We have learned that for this 'awakening' to occur we need to cook our soup with many years of sacrificial practice, mixed with the stock of spiritual-religious ideology. This is the usual paradigm of awakening and we expect to be removed from ‘ordinary’ consciousness to a realm of ‘profound’ consciousness as reward for all our hard work. If you expect it, be assured your experience will be 'profound' but it will most likely not be any ego-free, timeless truth.

Notice the blatant dualism in the interpretation. This seems to be the time-trap that many aspirants fall into. As if there were a dualistic interpretation to what is what is true in all situations at all times. “Who” is it that makes the contrast between ordinary and awakened? Can I know myself as awakened and still remember (memory-time) myself as ordinary? Or does my ordinary self disappear to become a new profound self? Is there an integration or a transcendence or merely just a transformation?

Can I slim down my obese ego through the right spiritual diet?

ABSOLUTE TRUTH

But for absolute truth to be true, it must be absolutely true all the time, since there can be no such thing as part-time truth to what is absolute. So how can there be a “time” when truth is not true? Can absolute truth be 'ordinary' one moment and 'profound' the next?

Many would contend that truth is always true, yet we just don’t know it... yet.

But how could that be? For truth to be true, it must always be known as true, otherwise it’s not truth. For absolute truth to be true it must be known always and immediately and there can never be a time when it is not known. To say that there is a time when truth is not known, or that we are unaware of truth, is to deny such a thing as absolute truth. You can’t deny it, otherwise how could it be true. Absolute truth is true all the time, no matter what you do to deny it, since it can't be denied.

Notice how the serious spirtualists apply the paradigm of relative truth to what is absolute. There are many relative truths I may not be aware of, but I can never NOT be aware of absolute truth, otherwise it could not exist as absolute, which means 'true' in all circumstances, at all times. Therefore, the Many is as much an absolute truth as the One. So why do you only seek only the One by denying the Many?

“I once was lost, but now am found.” Obviously, you were never lost and there is nothing to find. So then, what are you looking for and who is looking? Is it the ordinary “you” seeking the new, improved and more profound “you”? Nope, its just “you.” There is no 'ordinary' before or 'profound' after.

I recall the neurochemical whiz-bangs I got, many years ago, after several days of 6 hour zazen and some robed 'master' slapping a whisk broom across my shoulders. Wow! That was no ordinary experience. In fact, I thought it was pretty damn “profound”! All I needed was the right ideology through which to make sense and that was spoon fed to me from the start.

Many would argue that the concepts used are merely "fingers pointing to the moon." Subsequently, I too, point to the moon, but only to inform that there is nothing to point to, because there is no moon (“Good night, moon”).

Of course, most folks don’t like me tinkerin’ with their profound experiences. Wouldn’t want the awakened ones to ever doubt their “truth.” However, if you really want “awakening” then let doubt be your guide and fill your mind. Because doubt is the absolute truth and you will never know a more profound and infinite experience. It must be, because you know it NOW and you will know it always. Doubt is one thing you will never be without.

When you no longer seek to be surprised by profound moments of truth, you will be surprised by the ordinary ones. Ooops, HA! Just had one there…Ooops, there goes another. Ah, what the heck, might as well keep it going!

INFINITE REDUCTIONISM: Mystical concepts

I tend to have difficulties with the "mystical" descriptors or concepts, especially when they endure centuries of translation, and the neo-masters to insist that they are the only valid "pointers." Therefore, I'm one of the few who actually question the ancient masters (and my ego loves me for it!)

This is why I look at the words used to define that which we seek to learn in order to essentially rise above our 'ego-self.' I tend to parse and split the concepts apart in a game of infinite reductionism.

This type of reductionism can be very precarious because, rather than start from the bottom and add up, I start from the top and subtract down. Therefore, rather than microscopically examining the concept of, say, "body," which is very gross and concrete, I start with the concept of "enlightenment" which is highly abstract and mystical (not that there is a method to this madness, it's just more fun and leads to all kinds of neat metaphysical poetry). However, most egos demand results, as in attachment to some concept as anchor. We want the truth! Infinite reductionism will not give you truth....sorry (because "you can't handle the Truth!!")

For instance, I have perseverated to distraction, with regard to the mystical concepts of transcendence vs transformation. Many would argue that they mean the same, yet, the ego-self is obsessed with concepts. If everything is nothing but conceptual, to understand the concepts that you fixate on is crucial to understanding what you ARE and maybe even getting some freedom from a new and improved definition of 'self.' In following any "spiritual path" you are essentially tweaking or redefining your definition of ego-self and based on the conceptual ideology of the 'path.'

Feel free to deconstruct all your experiences...I do...

Why do you do the things you have evaluated as needing to be done? What life- games are important to you? What are all these numerous purposes and functions you attach to as necessary or important? Why go to work, make money, have sex, be entertained, love others, stay alive, be healthy, etc, etc, etc? Why do anything at all? When you come to realize the conceptual nature of reality, you can no longer avoid scientifically examining the games you play. This reductionism can be a disparaging or rejuvenating experience, depending on your current self-concept.

DECONSTRUCTING THE MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE

How can deconstruction be seen in a way to facilitate a transformation as opposed to the centuries of wisdom traditions which teach that we must transcend or essentially leave what IS behind, since it is only illusion? The "master" knows you cannot dissociate from your self-concepts without great fear and, so, the master provides new concepts for you to fixate on in the hope that these new concepts will lead you to a complete 'conception-less' existence. I contend that the new concepts only keep you more attached to an ego-self.

It seems the problem is that the more I wish to transcend what is NOT 'real,'or is illusionary, the more I make it 'real.'

Quite a paradox.

Thus, the more you seek for the mystical experience, the more you push it away as something you are obviously not 'transcendent' enough to experience. This results in your living out a conceptual belief of having the experience as a future expectation and this denies the timelessness of the experience. Because, as they teach, the moment you assert IT IS, in that very moment the past is dissolved. But this can never happen since it was the past that created a "you" who has the experience and interprets it as "mystical.'

Therefore, in all your "mystical" experiences, interpreted by ego-self, like "damn! that was friggin' myyyyystical!" each experience has the past 'self' wrapped up in the interpretation of the experience.

If there is no past, "who" is it that has the experience of the moment, since you must identify with a past to be a 'person' experiencing the 'now.' The ego-self must, itself, be defined first, before the experience can be subsequently defined or interpreted. All experience is subsequent to an ego-self first being experienced.

Good grief! Could it be possible that you are in a mystical experience right this very moment? Cowabunga!

But if that's true, why don't you define this very moment as 'mystical'? It must be that you are engaged in your ego defined "unawakened," inadequacy in the continued belief that you need to be more or higher than what you are.

The enlightened masters and gurus inform you that, yes, you are obviously not "awakened." But no worry, follow this path and experience your awakened nature.

Ahhhh, but wait....the path requires an unawakened nature prior to the awakened nature realization!

Huh?

That must mean that your unawakened nature is essentially more valuable to you than your awakened nature. Because, if you're NOT who you were when you awaken, "who" is it that has determined that you're awakened?

The "Incredible Lightness of Being" as Infinite Inconsistency

The egoic conceptualization (belief) that you will have some egoless experience outside time is most likely the cause of egoic suffering. Yet, it's a comfortable idea to a very uncomfortable ego seeking to learn how to achieve ever greater comfort in a world defined by suffering and sacrifice. Isn't that all you really want?

However, if the experience of ego-self was formulated in consciousness (since it’s really nothing more than that) then most likely enlightenment is process just as the ego-self is process. There is no static or solidified self-concept (even though we tend to 'live' as though there were) and the very nature of ego-self is composed of consistent change or infinite inconsistency.

The ego-mind has deluded itself into conceptualizing an "awakening," as some point in time, of pure, unadulterated consistency and this is how it defines "truth." This is because ego-self believes its suffering is a result of change or inconsistency. But that's what IT IS and therefore, in seeking a point of pure consistency it essentially seeks NOT to be itself, which it can never be. Therefore, for an ego-self that can never be anything but an ego-self, there is no such concept as timelessness, only infinite time.

Ego-self is time-oriented and for ego to be timeless means not to exist at all and who wants to not exist or Be? The ego-self is a time-based concept, since it requires “development” through which to be known to itself. Ego-self conceptualized being “born” and in time it knows itself as “existing” through change as ever more egoic or self-oriented. This is why I continue to contend that any attempts to pursue egolessness, or transcend ego, only builds a bigger ego.

Nevertheless, as the theory goes, following birth the ego then engages in concept accumulation (constructing a belief system) up to a point where it then realizes the psychological concepts it has collected actually hide something it needs to KNOW as that which provides a "final knowing." True, something is hidden, but it's not anything final. In fact, it's the experience of infinite inconsistency that you've been resisting all this time. There can be no final anything.

At this point the ego must then begin a sort of backward realizing of less and less concepts concerning itself, or engage in a process of conceptual stripping (dissociating from concepts of itself) which many equate with a return to the consciousness that existed at or before “birth.” The less concepts the egoic mind is attached to, the greater freedom it experiences.

This conceptual stripping is really what many consider as "awakening" episodes. This is because, as you realize that attachment to concepts, or beliefs, is a choice, you empty your baggage which becomes lighter by degrees. This experiencing has been referred to as "the incredible lightness of being" but most just call it "awakening."

Therefore, the process of egoic learning is actually an unlearning and "enlightenment," or "awakening," can only be within the process of learning-to-unlearn what ego has defined as itself. Yet, the process never ends and most likely goes on after-death. This is because it is the ego-self, or "you" that must define itself as dead. So if an ego-self defines itself as dead, clearly this opens the door to a new game we call "afterlife." Many might argue that an ego cannot define itself as "dead" the moment the body expires, since the go expires with it. Well...you can play by that rule if you so choose, however, I would suggest that this rule has resulted in a great deal of "before-death" suffering.

There is NEVER a point in time at which an ego-self can have learned everything needed to be egoless. This is because the chief defining factor of ego-self is learning-in-time. An end of time signifies an end of learning, which obviously means an end to self. “You” can never end because learning can never end. Learning is infinite.

The Truth (cap T) is that learning is infinite and there is no point at which ALL is known. Truth has no finite properties. Accumulative 'knowing,' or unlearning through stripping of concepts, just keeps going on and on, since Truth must be infinite and cannot be a finite point in time, because that means Truth would have a finite end point. Truth cannot stop or have an end for it to be Truth. Therefore, it cannot be suddenly known, all inclusivley, as some infinite 'understanding' at some point in time, since infinite understanding presupposes never knowing. It can only be infinitely learned but never fully known because the knowing is infinite or never ending. Thus, the incredible lightness of being is merely being infinitely inconsistent.

Duh!
mikeS

Why Not Create Your Own Religion? (U.S. taxpayers only)

Hmmmm.... so how is spiritual "success" defined? How does one know they are spiritually "developing"? Are there guideposts along the way that are defined as distinctly 'true' measures of this development? And are they the SAME for everyone? If so, how were the guideposts determined as "truth" or, in other words, 'who' determined them?

Can you follow many different paths and be following each path distinctly, since all paths adhere to different ideology and practices? Haven't you simply extracted portions to thereby, create your own path and although this new path you have created has portions of other paths in it, it is essentially a unique path all its own? In fact, it becomes your path and essentially your religion.


It seems new 'religions' are created everyday in just this manner.

If the master imparts the teaching to the student who has determined he is "master"? Does the "master" step forward and declare "I am master and I will teach you!"

It seems most likely the students will give credence to the master by their proclaiming him the teacher. But, if that's so, then the student is really the master, since it was the student who granted the master permission to teach by noting the master's "wisdom." But how could the student recognize the master's wisdom if the student did not also have that wisdom from which to see it in the master?

So who is really student and who is teacher here?

If you are the student who seeks a teacher, to teach 'the way,' then you must know 'the way' you're seeking, so why not teach yourself? If you teach yourself, then you are under no ideological constraints except those you install. Why apply somebody else's constraints, since you will inevitably make up your own any way?

Currently, as of February 16, 2009, there are well over 6 billion religions and that number changes by the second (based on The World Population Clock).

Therefore, I often find it interesting that, based on most surveys, there are only approximately 19 to 22 major religions in the world. Did you know that, as of 2005, Christianity had about 2.1 billion different renditions? WOW! So many people all heading for the same place each using a different map to get there and, make no mistake, although all maps have similarities, each and every one is uniquely different.

I'm almost positive they don't count my religion in any of these surveys.

My religion tends to have aspects of Tibetan Buddhism and Christianity, as well as Hindu and Advaita Vedanta flavors mixed in with the essence of Islam and an aroma of Zen, not to mention various nuances of numerous other persuasions, like Integral Theory and Quantum Physics. Like a fine wine it must be slowly savored and, amazingly, it's different each time and seems to change from moment to moment.

What? Did you think 'the way' was the same all the time? LoL!

Nevertheless, I consider my religion distinctly mine, but it's never mentioned in any survey of world religions. However, it seems a lot of people have been left out!

We really can't deny that, since "god" is nothing but a matter of interpretation, no matter what model or basis of interpretation you wrap your mind around, the interpretation will always be distinctly yours.

So go ahead, create you own religion. Of course, this would be a major catastrophe for the United States government. Think about all the tax deductions this would mean!

mikeS

Finally, Instant Enlightenment Can Be Yours! (for the low, low price of $599)

Here it is! Finally what you’ve been seeking all these years: The Big Mind/Big Heart Workshop



“You'll have a real, tangible experience of being One with the entire universe — what Genpo Roshi calls Big Mind/Big Heart. I'm talking about the same experience a Zen master or other enlightened master has — something that usually takes decades of meditation and direct work with a spiritual master to achieve. I'm not kidding. You'll experience this amazing state (more than once) during these two days, and I promise it will change your life — forever...” (Big Mind/Big heart Workshop)

YAAAY! (and he ain't "kidding"!)

Now we have a psychologist and a “Zen master” teaming up to deliver directly to you the best quality “enlightenment”that money can buy. And it will only take you two days, and $599 (early registration only), to experience what an “enlightened master” experiences after a lifetime of sacrifice and struggle. However, you better hurry and register NOW because:

“The event will be March 7 - 8 in Los Angeles, California and in order to make it more intimate we are limiting the number of attendees. So, if you're interested, please register right away. Since we're offering a special discount for early registration, it's very possible that early registrants alone will fill the event. So please don't wait if you want to be there.” (forget about “Be Here Now,” you need to be ‘there,' Los Angeles California, enlightenment capital of the world!)

Whoa, dang! Where do I sign, so that, in only 2 days, I can get my:

"Buddha Mind — the mind of clarity, transcendental wisdom, and unconditional compassion — and, the profound personal and psychological insights that go with it.”

The MC of this 2 day event is Bill Harris, who advertises himself as some sort of psychologist/guru. This guy seems to pop up with every awakening game that comes down the pike, even the Law of Attraction party invites Bill. He seems to be a promoter of the stars in the enlightenment show (no matter where that show's being performed) and I imagine ads like this tend to pull in a big audience.

But forget about the promoter and let’s look at who he promotes for this “workshop.” Genpo Roshi is an expert player in the game of enlightenment and here is a Wikipedia endorsement highlighting Roshi’s claim to fame:

"In 1973 he ordained as a Buddhist monk under the guidance of Taizan Maezumi, completing his koan studies in 1979. Before ordaining in 1973, he had spent a year in silent retreat in the mountains of California. In 1980 he became a Dharma Successor of Maezumi. Starting in 1982 Merzel began traveling to areas of Europe and established an international network of Zen groups. Genpo Merzel received inka from Bernard Glassman in October 1996 of the White Plum lineage. He has also served as President of White Plum Asanga."

Wow! This guy ain't no run-of-the-mill enlightened master. Notice the pedigree and credentials necessary to be considered an "enlightened master," which must include your own “awakening” and the confirmation of another “awakened master” needed to endorse the “truth” that you have, in fact, been awakened.

This is a very exclusive club and not just anyone gets in. In fact, you need to attain your "inka" which "denotes a high-level of certification, and literally means "the legitimate seal of clearly furnished proof." In other words, promotions, or titles, are limited to only a select few in this game. But, obviously, that must be true, since what kind of world would this be if we all were 'gurus.' HA! That's utterly ridiculous!

Notice, in addition, that you need to be credentialed (through "linneage") by an accepted institution in the field of awakening, such as the “White Plum Asanga” which is known for its notable membership, all of which can be distinguished by their names having some Tibetan (correct me if I'm wrong) derivative like genpo, daido, enkyo, chozen, etc, etc.

Without the name, your nobody in this game, pal!

These particular “awakening” games have very strict rules that must be followed if you desire membership and wish to be recognized as a player. Nevertheless, we are in tough economic times and this requires funding be sought through less traditional means. This is why the neo-masters and modern gurus need to be promoted to the general public rather than just those of us who have always longed to be enlightened or awakened.

John Q Public wants his awakening fast...in fact, he wants it, 'to go'!

They can no longer rely on the few who have read the sutras or practiced years of meditation. Difficult times call for drastic measures and even if you don’t know what ‘enlightenment’ is, never mind, because Bill and Genpo have defined it for you as the “tangible experience of being One with the entire universe…” In addition, by “being One [cap ‘O’] with the entire universe [not just a portion, mind you, but the entire shebang] you will “have many huge ah-ha's about what your life is about, who you really are, what it means to be a human being.” And “You'll very likely experience permanent resolution regarding at least one — and probably several — dark places in your life” (but they only guarantee resolution of one “dark place,” more than that would require a longer "workshop" and, obviously, more $$$).

My friends, the best “awakening” you could achieve is to avoid these hucksters like the plague.

However, if you do decide to play this game, recognize that it has only two important requirements that you must adhere to in order to participate and not to follow these two rules automatically disqualifies you from the game.

You cannot be awakened before you come to the workshop! If you are already enlightened, then I assume they won't even let you in the door (so wear your best hangdog face!)

In addition, you must accept their definition of “awakening’ for it to be the authentic, real McCoy, of "awakening." If you do fail to achieve it as defined, then I imagine there will be future workshops.

So, enjoy your "workshop"!
mikeS

Is "Be Here Now" Bullshit?

I have no problem with chemical 'states of consciousness,' since there really is no difference. You can interpret experiencing 'god,' on acid or meditating with your guru, it really doesn't matter, since it will be the ego that interprets it as an experience of 'god' based on whatever ideology the ego adopts as 'true.'

But is there an experience of something more than ego or even not ego involved in terms of making that interpretation? I believe there is a field of uninterpretable consciousness from which ego arises, but if I make such an interpretation from an experience, doesn't that assert ego ownership and therefore the interpretation will be tainted by ideological learning?

In fact, could we not say that all interpretations of a present moment are interpretations acquired from the past. For instance, you may have an experience that you interpret as "be here now" but if that experience is ego-self interpreted (and how could it not be), and all interpretations have an ideological viewpoint and must come from a 'self,' then it was learned from the past and therefore, IT IS the past that is applied to the experience. In other words, who or what from the past, taught you to interpret certain experiences as "be here now"?

This is why I take issue with all interpretive language, especially the sacrosanct, ideologically specialized concepts like "awakening," "enlightenment" "nirvana" "samadhi" "satori" etc, etc, etc.
Once I hear these ego-self interpretations of experience, I tend to figure that this was the paradigm going into the 'experience' and it's what's declared as 'truth,' coming out. The experience merely serves to further reinforce the ideology and bolster the ego-self.

Is there an "authentic awakening"? It seems there are numerous "awakenings" one could have, that do nothing but take an experience of normal "awakening" into a higher or more profound interpretation and if one achieves different states of consciousness (drugs or meditation) then clearly value will be applied to each episode of experience.

Much Hindu/Zen/Advaitist ideology revolves around 'awakening' levels and degrees. This seems to keep the enlightened fat-cats at the top, "yes, grasshopper, you may be awakened, but you are only first-level, novitiate awakened, not grand-awakened such as I" (a little Yoda humor).

The sacred ones tend to avoid me and I don't blame them, all this reductionism gets pretty tedious and discouraging. However, we all have egoic "frames of reference" and I think spiritual paths provide such 'frames.' They are very helpful in negotiating the world. However, I don't believe an ego-self can transcend itself employing the ideologies and practices currently advocated.

Yet, I don't totally disbelieve either. Nevertheless, if this is even possible, we'll need to really understand the underlying ego-self dynamics, that we spend our wholes lives ignoring, if we wish to find a way to go beyond the usual interpretations of 'enlightenment,' 'awakening' or 'god.'

mikeS

CONVERSATIONS WITH EGO: "Awakening II"

ego: Ok, Mike. I agree… you’re awakened.

Mike: Huh? I didn’t know I needed your agreement.

ego: Well, if I don’t recognize your “awakening” how will you know it’s true?

Mike: Well then….I guess I have no choice then but to let you in on it.

ego: Well, Mike, in all honesty, and we really should start being more honest with each other, I’ve been “in on it” from the start. Problem is, I didn’t want you getting’ a big head about all this “spiritual” stuff you suddenly seem so wrapped up in. There’s a lot of other things we need to keep aware of, ya know.

Mike: “Big head”! Seems to me, you’re the one who gets big headed about stuff and I have to keep you in check. How ‘bout all those get “rich quick” scams you got me into!

ego: I guess in many ways we’ve had to rely on each other. It’s just that…well, all this "ego transcendence" stuff tends to get me a little nervous, that’s all.

Mike: ….And, since we’re finally getting honest with each other, I suppose I have to admit that being without you does tend to frighten me a bit too. I mean, it’s like you say, who would I be without you. Yet, you have been to blame for alot of past mistakes and trust has become a serious issue for me.

ego: But Mike, we were supposed to make those mistakes! I mean, how would we have gotten this far by now?

Mike: Whaaa? …..so what exactly are you saying? Do you know something I don’t?

ego: I guess from now on, you’re just gonna have to trust me.

Mike: (sigh)

What is an Ego?

Although there are many definitions of the abstract concept referred to as “ego,” I tend to consider it EVERYTHING.

This is often why I refer to it as an “ego-self” rather than just ego.

The ego is your belief in a ‘self’ in a 'body,' in a 'world.' Whether or not these beliefs are true is beside the point. The fact is that for most of us, we conduct our lives as if these beliefs were absolutely true.

The definition I employ is more a Buddhist/Freudian composite in that your 'ego-self' comprises everything you know, because it is everything you know that determines your identity based on how you associate to this 'knowledge.' Associating to knowledge means asserting it as true or false. Dogs are asserted as true and you do perceive dogs. But flying dogs are asserted as false and thus, you would never perceive that which is declared as false, except in your imagination. But if even you imagined flying dogs you would assert it as false or not "real." We can think or imagine anything we choose, but we decide what is real or not real.

Therefore, we could also say, as did Freud, that the ego is the “package of beliefs” that determines who and what you ARE (yet, Freud believed the 'body' and 'world' were real and unquestionable). Since you believe you know who you ARE, you have thus established a belief system to emphasize that 'you-ness' and that belief system is chock full of concepts you believe in as true or false. It's through these true and false concepts that you conduct the project of 'living.' Many actually tend to deny awareness of the concepts that they employ to determine actions. However, the actions exhibit what is believed.

Many claim that this belief system was taught you. However, you were not taught that you had a 'self' within a 'mind' contained in a 'body,' which exists in a 'world.' However, you were taught to reinforce and support your belief in all this through a bodily sensation system that provided an 'experience' of you as a 'self,' in a 'body' in a 'world,' thereby proving to your 'self' that you are what you say you are, but really nothing more than that.

Nevertheless, everything you believe is experiential and restricted to a 'mind' that you can't even prove exists. Contrary to the Cartesian method, which has been refuted as proving nothing, you really have absolutely no proof that any of the beliefs you rigidly subscribe to are true. You believe you are a 'self’ with a 'mind,' but how can you prove it. In addition, you believe your 'self' in a 'mind' is contained by a 'body,' but sensation of your body is evaluated in your mind, so how can you prove your 'body' even really exists, since you can't even prove that you have a 'mind.'

You could ask 'others,' but if you experience 'others' in your 'mind,' how can you prove that 'they' exist since "you" can't even prove you have a 'mind.' Maybe you conjured “others” up out of nowhere to simply prove that “you” exist and 'they’ have no reason for being other than that.

This is referred to as "solipsism" which is “the belief that all reality is just one's own imagining of reality, and that one's self is the only thing that exists”(American Heritage). HA! Simply ridiculous.

Yet, many ancient eastern, spiritual, non-dualist, traditions propose just that, only they also assert that the ‘self’ is imaginary as well, although many assert a timeless Self (Cap ‘S’) that the little self, in time, seeks to aspire to.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that any definition that ‘I’ assert as true, is an ‘I’ attempting to define it 'self', which thereby merely cancels it 'self' out. Therefore, 'I' do may NOT even exist, but then, nor do 'you.'

Hope this helps! LOL

CONVERSATIONS WITH EGO: "Awakening"

Mike: WOW! Unbelievable! HaHa! I now finally realize what “Awakening” is!

ego: Oh? And what’s that, mike?

Mike: It means that I don’t need to seek “Awakening” anymore, because I am already Awakened!



ego: Uh, Ok… that’s fine, but…we don’t seem to feel any different than we did a moment ago.

Mike: Achh! You don’t understand. It’s not about any state of mind it just IS!

ego: What just “IS”?

Mike: Awakening!

ego: I’m not sure I get it. What have we “awakened” to?

Mike: "We" no, no no, I've "awakened to my True Self.

ego: Your true self…does that include me?

Mike: Well, no…actually, I have to "transcend" you and you have to dissolve or be annihilated or something like that.

ego: Well, you better be clear on this mike, because…I’m still here…are you sure you’re awakened? Maybe I’m just supposed to hang around a little while longer.

Mike: Huh? …No! my awakening is supposed to be egoless. Don’t you get it?! You’re the whole damn problem…all your striving and desiring…you’re the cause of all my suffering and to be awakened is to be without YOU!

ego: But, Mike, who would you be… without me?

Mike: Free! Finally free of all my suffering. All the suffering that YOU caused.

ego: Uh, ok then… I’ll just step back here awhile, out of the way, and let you enjoy this “awakening.” But when you need me, just go ahead and give me a shout.

Mike: HA! Need you! You just don’t get it. Our relationship is over, kaput, no more!

ego: Ok then, but……oh yeah, I almost forgot, don’t forget to pay the electric bill cause you’re now 5 days late. Oh and don’t forget, you’re supposed to pick up your daughter after school today and make sure you stop and pickup your prescriptions on the way home. Hey, look at your hair! Aren’t you due for a haircut? By the way, shouldn’t you be thinking about getting something for your wife’s birthday and another thing……………

Mike: (sigh)


Dedicated to MonkMojo

Experiencing Altered States of Awakening

The experience of an altered state of consciousness, whether meditative or drugs, is interpreted by the ego based on the paradigm or world model the ego entered the experience with. The altered state, or superconscious state as many refer to it, are merely outside the norm of typical conscious experiences and the ego then uses it to reinforce the paradigm it went into the experience with.

Meditation is primarily an eastern practice and it is true that long meditation states will stimulate neurochemical changes that lead to altered states of consciousness. Yet, most meditative practices are supported by an ideology, ie, Hindu/Buddhist/Zen/Advaita, which is used by the ego-self to interpret the state. Altered state experiences are useless to an ego that can't make constructive interpretations of that state. What are the constructive interpretations? Whatever they taught you they were. But is that the "truth"?

"Be here now" is an ego-self interpretation of a psychic experience. But, are you really "here now"?

Doesn't matter, because the ego has thus interpreted the altered state experience through that learned ideology and therefore... IT MUST BE TRUE.

But where did the interpretation come from in the first place?

You were taught it.

Frequently individuals have had these experiences years ago and had no basis for interpretation until much later when an eastern paradigm is applied. You can see this with Eckhart Tolle who reports that he had no specialized spiritual training prior to his "dark night of the soul." But read his books and you will note that they drip of eastern ideology. This is paradigm application... after the fact.

These types of altered state experiences are unstructured and therefore the ego needs to structure or frame the experience so that it has something to attach to as "real."

Essentially, it doesn't matter how you come to the experience, the requirement is that it be paradigmatic so that you can understand it and most meditative paradigms, chock full of all the lingo and jingles, are primarily eastern Hindu/Buddhist ideology. This doesn't make the experience unreal, it just brackets the experience within the ego-self knowledge base through which it can therefore, interpret itself as "awakened."

Through a constant drive-to-question the paradigms or models we interpret as "truth," will we eventually unveil the false models/paradigms in seeking if there is such a thing as an Absolute Truth (cap T).

This does not make me especially popular in spiritual circles.
HA! (oh well...my lot is a lonely one...LOL!)

Yet, for what it's worth, I do value spiritual ideologies, since I see nothing else that comes close to what this Truth could be anywhere in the world's value system. However, I believe if we intend to evolve to this Truth, then we will need to strip away the fat that merely delays that evolution (ode to Ken Wilber).

I strongly believe there is a possibility these eastern paradigms, applied to altered experiences, merely delay awareness of the Truth and require more accurate interpretations as opposed to centuries old eastern paradigms and models.

The question is, can you interpret your experience without any paradigm or model of reality whatsoever?

Can you take your altered state experience and use it to extend to others without any egoic interpretation, ie, "gee, look at me being so loving!" or "hey! I've just had an experience that they teach not too many will ever have!" etc, etc, etc.

In other words, can you be "awakened" and not even know you are "awakened."

Or, can you enter your altered conscious state without any paradigm for which to make sense of it?

Seems to me that can't be taught, but it may be the only way.

But I'm just saying...

You Damn Well Better Take This Work Seriously!

In considering the fact that we all tend to take the ‘living of our lives' very seriously, I suppose it’s no real surprise that we take our “awakening” projects just as serious. It seems projects such as awakening and enlightenment (and they are projects with goals) are no different than pursuing a career in the world.

The consensus seems to be that it should be just as difficult to be awarded the title of “enlightened” as it is to be awarded the title of “doctor.” Both demand years of hard work and sacrifice in order to acquire the title and prestige of a life spent seriously pursuing that goal.

Yet, many might claim that to be “awakened,” no such ‘title’ is awarded nor is one necessary. However, all the games of the world have prizes based on achieving outcomes and if the world does not recognize your outcome, then essentially it has NOT been achieved.

Unless, of course, your ego-self simply eschews or discards any and all opinions other than it 'self.' Nevertheless, that paradigm of pure self-absorption is recognized as well, and we refer to it as INSANITY. You’d be surprised how many 'awakened' individuals reside in insane asylums simply because nobody else agreed that they were “awakened” but they refuse to recant (this is often referred to as "the messiah complex"). LOL!

The spiritual-work paradigm is quite similar to the ‘world’s’ paradigm of work or, as socially defined, “no pain, no gain.” If you want to be a success in the world then, obviously, we all agree that you must work hard. Of course, even in the world there are exceptions to that rule, however, the world of inner seeking or following a chosen spiritual path seems to lack such exceptions. Most of the masters, modern and ancient, espouse the paradigm of 'hard work.' Even Eckhart Tolle reports his “dark night of the soul" after many years of egoic struggle from which his ‘awakening’ magically materialized and, as long as enough people AGREE, then he is awarded that prize (and makes a decent couple a 'bucks as well).

Imagine if he had reported “yea, after a great steak dinner and a few glasses of sherry, I suddenly became “awakened!” I suppose many would simply proclaim, “You dumb bastard, that's NOT "awakening," your were just drunk!”

Problem is that the paradigm of work tends to assert an outcome or reward, since why else would you spend years 'working' if there was not some payoff or beneficial outcome rewarding you for all your years of labor. There are certainly many busy bees out there when it comes to working toward enlightenment and they revel in the struggle and sacrifice the outcome supposedly demands.

I merely suggest that there may be NO outcome and if that were true, would you continue to work?


Try to present a contradictory viewpoint to others, like, there’s nothing you can do to prepare for enlightenment, and you might be vehemently attacked. If you visit the spiritual blogs scattered throughout the internet, you will undoubtedly recognize the paradigm of the “spiritual journey” as 'work.' I like Byron Katie's site because she makes absolutely no bones about it and actually calls her practice "The Work."

I was reading about this 'work paradigm' yesterday on a very insightful blog called the Tami Simon Blog. Tami Simon writes:

“If we believe that the spiritual journey is quick and easy (like following the instructions on the back of a bag of microwave popcorn), we will not be prepared for the real work, the “heavy lifting” of genuine transformation. What I mean by “genuine transformation” is a process by which everything that is false in us—our emotional defenses, limiting beliefs, and self-structures—are seen and released, and a new unbounded and mysterious sense of self emerges which is fluid and ever-changing.”

Does this “heavy lifting” include the transformation of the 'work paradigm' because, make no mistake, within that paradigm are the principles of sacrifice and struggle. Or has the ego-self determined that the 'hard work' paradigm is NOT false but true. But is it? Well, who knows, except, if everybody's doing it, then it must be true. Right?

Good grief, if I have to sacrifice and struggle to get “enlightened," then why bother, since I do the same sacrificing and struggling just to make a damn living. Unless, of course, the ‘outcome’ is greater than what I would receive from the world's demand for 'hard work.' It must be, otherwise, why do the work.

Yet, I do understand the message of the awakening project not being “quick and easy” since that’s another western paradigm that gets a lot of mileage. In many aspects of our life, we expect “instant’ results and it seems this was developed by the ego-self in order to offset all the ‘pain’ demanded by the ‘hard work’ paradigm. With all my years of ‘hard work’ to get ‘enlightened,’ I damn well expect there to be some instant results scattered about, here and there, like, "wow, that inner buzzing from my meditation was cool, I guess I’m on my way to Awakening!”

Sure, it may not be total ‘awakening’ but at least a few little quick ‘awakenings’ to minimize the discouragement before I get to the Big Bang, because “all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy!”

Many teachers and aspirants believe that the spiritual journey is not formulaic or one size fits all. But, au contraire, if the work leads to a reward, then clearly there is a formula and it’s usually presented as:

many years + struggle/sacrifice = Awakening.


It seems we all tend to subscribe to that belief system because it rolls well with what the ego-self already believes. Is it possible that something as ineffable, acutely profound and, supposedly, outside all worldly paradigms, like awakening, enlightenment, nirvana, or however you define it, would incorporate the same formula as becoming successful in the world? Because, essentially, the model is exactly the same.

Sure, your spiritual journey can be “rewarding” and I have no problems with rewards. Yet, let’s be clear on who or what is getting rewarded. It is the ego-self (belief package) or that part of you that loves the “spiritual journey.” But, hey, that’s okay, since that’s what you are, an ego-self looking for rewards. That’s what an ego-self does, for cryin’ out loud!

Now, I’m not pounding on spiritual paths, per say, (well, maybe a little) as they do tend to aid in negotiating a difficult world and, as such, they tend to provide some ego-comfort. But, my friends you’re gonna have to really question the paradigms or belief systems you idolize, and live through, as “truth.” That’s the only way your going to shift your egoic frame of reference enough to experience the SURPRISE that has no path.

Don’t ask me to define that because there really is no formula through which it can be defined, because it’s a surprise. There is no path and it doesn’t require work, HOWEVER, nor does it require that you don’t work. It simply asks that you take ‘seriously’ both paradigms. Yet, there’s the paradox. How can you take seriously both work and not work at the same time?

YOU CAN’T.

And that’s the Surprise!
(are you ‘awakened’ yet?)

mikeS

Get High, Get God...It's All Up to Your Ego

I remember years ago reading about Richard Alpert, assistant 'acid master' under the tutelage of the real 'master' Timothy Leary at Harvard Univ. Alpert reported experiencing the same wild, flying through consciousness , world-love, experiences in India with his chosen guru, as when he was daily experimenting with LSD at Harvard U.


He came back from his Indian induction as Baba Ram Dass. In several books, most famous “Be Here Now,” Ram Dass asserted that through 'natural’ meditative practices he achieved the same ‘higher states of consciousness’ that he experienced through LSD and Psilocybin (mushrooms) while at Harvard.

I've had some profoundly interesting experiences many years ago while ingesting various chemicals. I have also had very similar experiences through my own past meditation practices (through the American Med. Society, which teaches a form of TM only with a personalized mantra provided by the guru or guruic representative). This is commensurate with the claims of Ram Dass, Terrence McKenna, and many others.

So what’s the difference between the drugged experiences and the reported "pure" experiences of meditation?

The difference seems most likely (speculation, open for questioning) in the paradigm through which the experiences are interpreted (of course, this is also Ken Wilbers claim). Ram Dass’s guru taught ‘service’ and Ram Dass returned to the states with that learned goal clearly reinforced by the intense "superconscious," or altered state, experiences he acquired. If the egoic paradigm supports God, nirvana, enlightenment, etc, then clearly the altered psychic state will be interpreted by the ego in just that way.

The egoic paradigm is paramount and serves to filter any profound psychic experiences. Thus, without the learned paradigm, the experiences, such that Alpert had at Harvard, were useless since the paradigm or model which made the interpretations, while on acid, was grounded in the world's value system.

The meditative psychic experience is filtered through what the ego-self considers as pure and unadulterated eastern paradigm. Although both may be the exact same states of consciousness, it is the egoic self which makes the determination as to value and worthiness in order to be accepted as 'awakening' or 'enlightenment.' The experience is real (whether through drugs or meditation) while the interpretation is purely ego-self, "wow, that was great! It must've been the enlightenment they told me about."

Ram Dass needed, in his opinion, the correct paradigm or teachings before he could adequately process the psychic states. The states then supported and reinforced the paradigm. (if you read Castenanda’s “Don Juan” you’ll see these same egoic interpretations of higher or altered states throughout the narrative, but note that psychedelics were used to attain the states).

My assertion is that through these states or neurochemical alterations, the ego constructs interpretations that it has learned from other teachers that simply serve to reinforce the ego from those interpretations. The interpretations will be formed from the paradigm that the ego-self has determined are worthy of adoption and this occurs long before the experience is encountered, otherwise the experience must be processed through whatever paradigm or model exists within the ego belief system.

Yet, the ego can even go back and re-evaluate past states and thus make a consideration of "awakening.'

The question is, does the fact that the states are interpreted and defined by the ego lessen or diminish the psychic states? Do we need to have neurochemical imbalances and alterations to reinforce ego-self belief systems? Recall that severe bipolar neurochemical imbalances also result in altered psychic states, but we tend to refer to this as mental illness.

If superconsciousness or awakening is nothing more than an egoic interpretation of "superconsciousness," what does this say about the whole awakening premise or paradigm which is based on ego transcendence?

If the mental state requires ego interpretation, how could it ever signify a state of egolessness?

This tends to stand the usual argument of "you can't understand unless you have the experience" on its head. It seems the real story is that you can't understand the experience until you have the correct paradigm through which to interpret the experience.

Possibly the real experience, or Truth of the matter (cap T) is that you will need to smash all paradigms through which your ego has been taught to interpret experiences.

Maybe by preparing yourself for SURPRISE, with no paradigm attached or associated, will you then have an experience unclassifiable by your ego. Until then you will simply interpret your supposed superconscious psychic states based on how you were taught to interpret them.

And because of this, we have the wonderful "awakening" industry....

But, how can this be Truth? (cap T)