At 08:30 PM 12/24/2012, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
I was formally taught that energy & matter are interchangeable. I was also taught that neither of these states of existence can be created out of thin air or destroyed. Since our bodies are made of the exact same "stuff" that makes up the Universe I began to ask myself why isn't my sense of awareness, my state of consciousness just as much an immutable part of the Universe as matter and energy seems to be. Granted, considering such a possibility might lead one to speculate that there must be a "God", but I don't think that's necessarily the case, certainly not in the institutional sense as practiced by most organized religions. What I'm trying to suggest is that not only does the Universe exist in the form of matter and energy, perhaps it also exists as a state of Awareness. Perhaps Awareness can be transmuted, such as when we die, but not destroyed. Perhaps a state of Awareness can only be transformed into a different "state of Awareness"
There are two approaches to this. The first would be to inquire as to what "awareness" is. We assume that we are aware. How do we know this? We can program a machine to spit out the words "I am aware" when certain conditions arise.
Yet it does *seem* that there is something other than those words. Descartes wrote "I think, therefore I am," but what is this "I"? A more sober statement would be "Thinking, therefore existence."
My own training is that the "I" is illusory, it's how the brain refers to its own activity, but that activity is automatic, patterns of neurons firing. There isn't any self there, just a sense of identity that is only a pattern of patterns. That actually can't be specifically identified or found.
Yet that same training does point to something else. We can experience something else, yet that "something else" is still experienced, we might think, through the brain. Or is it? And there is no answer to this question, not really. From my experience, there is a different quality to this "something else," it is not personal, it is not individual, even though it's a well-spring of inspiration and self-expression.
Again, the training: all these questions are invented, made up, by the brain, as part of our survival mechanism. Yet there is something other than the world of survival, and, in fact, it can be plainly experienced. It's "palpable." In this work, it's called the Self. Experience of the Self seems to be universally possible, indeed it appears to be *instinctive.* The Self has obviously been around for a long time, for once one recognizes the Self, there is plenty of reference to it, back to the oldest writings we have.
The story of Ahmadinejad, here, in the Jojo dialogues, was a demonstration of the Self, my suspicion. Ahmadinejad probably didn't realize this, his comments don't show an awareness of the human Self, he ascribes his experience to the divine. Maybe. But what he describes is simply what I might call the Presence. He seems to have taken it personally. Or not. I'm not his Judge.
Experience of the Self makes those ancient references intelligible. From some level of contact with this, I was, in my twenties, able to translate the Heart Sutra from the Sanskrit, and I sent my translation to Edward Conze, probably the world's foremost Buddhist scholar of his time. I later found out that Conze had a reputation of biting the head off of students. He didn't bite mine off. Maybe I'd have been better off if he had! No, he acknowledged my translation, sent it on to the Buddhist Society of London for use -- it was designed to be chanted -- and he acknowledged that part of his own translation, which I'd questioned him about, was not based on the Sanskrit text, but on Chinese interpretation. I was actually translating from experience with the subject, which is why I noticed the discrepancy.
The brain wants, out of its long-established (and necessary) habits, to "own" this "other." So we "explain it," perhaps. But the explanations are not the Self. The explanations are just another part of "IT," which is what we call the brain activity. A newcomer to this work said it well, "Other than IT, there is nothing." Yup. But, ah, that nothing! And he knew that, after one weekend. He hadn't been told. It's a standing joke.
In that three-day seminar, it's commonly asked, the last day, "And what did you get for your $500?" And the room shouts, unprompted, "Nothing!" And they are overjoyed. No wonder they call this a cult!
People have *no right* to be so happy over getting "nothing" for their money. Right?
The leader will also explain that "Nothing we have told you is the truth." Basically, "we made it up." Again, obvious cult, eh? Nothing is the truth? What a scam! So they feed people a load of crap, and the people walk away smiling!
Except it isn't *exactly* a load of crap. What is conveyed are called "distinctions," and they are not "truth." If one thinks they are, one is led into some severe contradictions. No, they are *inventions.* As are all our explanations that we so naively imagine are "truth." The only difference is that perhaps these are distinctions that are empowering, ideas that effectively and efficiently transform, that actually *work.* Or they would not continue to be presented!
(More seriously, I had long experience with various techniques for reaching that goal. Some of them seem to be free. But you'll spend many years in practice, to get what these people routinely and with high reliability get in one weekend. Even 12-step programs -- which are fantastic! and free -- can *actually cost* more. The realization can be transient, if not anchored with practice, that's well known about all the old traditions for reaching this state, and that hasn't changed, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.)
I also noticed that we humans love to play games, particularly games that involve probability and chance. We often find it is a worthwhile experience when where we honestly don't know what the outcome might turn out be.
Indeed.
While Einstein once said god does not play with dice, I found myself asking: why doesn't the Universe play with dice. I do think the Universe plays with dice. Perhaps an Aware Universe learned long ago that it is a worthwhile experience to introduce "chance" into the equation, to allow oneself to be surprised at the outcome. I also think our own conscious Awareness is just as much a part of that eternal Universal game as well.
Obviously.
If so, throw them, again! Happy Holiday Frank.
And to all a good night.
