In meditation, everything is magnified. Everything is under the microscope. Everything becomes more evident, because we are in the laboratory.
It is such relief when we enter the direct path, when we finally give up trying to get rid of feelings, because it is so much work. We don’t have to do anything about these feelings. We can divorce them at any time. In fact we are not even married to them. When we understand this, we realize by the same token that we don’t have to go feeling by feeling. We can give them up, surrender them, in bulk, wholesale, and just remain in beingness. If the feelings are present, they are present. If they want to leave, they leave. We have nothing to do with them, no agenda. We remain in beingness.
Beingness is a different world, a different dimension, to which feelings have no access. That is why any manipulation of the feelings can never take us to beingness. Just as we can cut through thinkingness and go directly to the underlying feeling, so we can cut right through the layer of feelingness, boldly, and return to beingness. Take your stand as awareness, no matter what.
If we take our stand in beingness there will usually be great upheaval to begin with. There will be a revolt, an uproar. However, stay strong, bold, and steady because at the end the feelings lose. Gradually and miraculously things will sort themselves out.
The moment we take our stand in beingness, we open the gates of harmony. To begin with there is a lot of pressure. There is a big flow of energy through these gates, but the flow is moving in the right direction. Don’t be disappointed if you think you are not getting the expected objective result. That is not the way it happens. The results don’t come from the objects. Being is a different world, a different dimension.
You mentioned earlier the tendency to get stuck in this process of returning to the source.
There are two principle ways of becoming stuck at an intermediary level: one is due to passivity, the other is due to activity. Passivity, laziness, or apathy takes place when we discover a thought or a feeling that we do not really want to see. In order to cover it up, we create some sort of daydream, some sort of mental activity. This takes us away from the problem, from the tension, from the contraction. It is a refusal, an escape. Activity or agitation takes place at a later stage. This occurs when we want to eliminate the problem rather than escape it. The desire to eliminate the problem sticks us to it. Although it is a higher level than refusing to experience the thought or feeling fully, it is still a level of stickiness.
We can be stuck for years with one single problem, either in passivity or activity. It is important to see that clearly, so that we can implement this understanding in our meditation, so that we don’t waste our time at those intermediary levels.
Beingness is ever-present and permeates all things. Even hell wouldn’t exist without the beingness that permeates it. No matter what the feeling, we have the freedom to go back to this beingness in a split second. We can divorce the feelingness and the thinkingness, divorce our infatuation with a separate entity whenever we truly want to, provided we face the music that ensues with determination.
You talk about fear arising at some point.
The ego is surrounded by fear and desire. The ego is at the center of the web and the web is made of fear and desire. At the core of the web is the I-thought and the I-feeling. Whenever we become aware of fear it is like saying, “I am in the web.” If we follow the web to its center, we end up at the spider. It is the same here: if we follow the fear, at some point we arrive at the ego, the thought or feeling that I, consciousness, is limited. At that moment the ego is defenseless. Just seeing it for what it is accomplishes its disappearance or at least its disempowerment because, being itself a misunderstanding, it cannot tolerate being seen clearly, being understood. When there is no longer a spider at the center, the web is irreparably damaged and can no longer be fixed or expanded. We cooperate with this process by simply knowing that whenever we get entangled in the web, it doesn’t really matter because there is in fact no spider at the center that can harm us. After we have seen the root of fear, the ego, the fundamental mistake, it doesn’t necessarily imply that fear has disappeared altogether. The residual web is still present and we may occasionally get entangled in it, but the situation now is very different, because we see clearly that there is no danger of being killed by the spider. So we disentangle ourselves and that destroys a portion of the web. The more the web is eliminated, the more freely we move around.
We can never be sure that there isn’t some little piece of web remaining, but it doesn’t matter. We enjoy ourselves dancing around and celebrating. Any fear is just a pale reflection of what it used to be; it has lost its power. In the beginning we get entangled a lot because the spider is still apparently present, but after some time the web has been pretty much destroyed.
When the web appears and we get entangled in it, we shouldn’t be afraid of the spider. It doesn’t matter whether the spider has been neutralized already or whether it is still active, because in both cases it cannot hurt us. It is only the belief that the spider can hurt us that is dangerous. The ego spider is in fact powerless. Whenever we get entangled in the web, we should completely welcome this entanglement. Don’t resist it.
We get to the spider by having no intention to go anywhere and simply welcoming the entanglement or the predicament in which we find ourselves. By welcoming a piece of the web, we are led to the spider. As we get closer to the spider, fear increases and then at some point we decide that, come what may, we will keep welcoming out of love for truth. Then we reach the spider and look it in the eyes, and that kills it. So don’t worry about the entanglements.
However, if you are asking how to be free of unpleasantness, the answer is, “See your freedom.” You are free. It is only the illusion, the thought, the belief that we are not free that binds us. Consciousness is freedom itself.
What the Mind Cannot Know
Some sensations are unpleasant. What changes when I know that I am not a sensation?
An unpleasant sensation is made of two components, the sensation itself and its unpleasantness. It is the unpleasantness that is the problem. The unpleasantness is the reaction of a “someone” for whom the sensation is unpleasant. The “someone” is the reaction, the resistance, the “I don’t like.” This reaction, this dislike, is itself another sensation. So there are two sensations. We are not trying to understand that we are not the first sensation, we are trying to investigate for whom the first sensation is unpleasant. If we completely welcome this unpleasantness, this resistance, we realize that we are the space in which it appears, that we are not whatever is being welcomed. In this way we automatically experience ourselves as the witnessing presence in which the sensation, the reaction against it, and its alleged reacting subject, the ego, appear.
We should welcome the whole situation, the sensation and our resistance to it. If the resistance is itself unpleasant, then welcome this third sensation and so on. If we pile up sensations in this way, at some point there is no further resistance and we start to move in the opposite direction. This time, all the superimposed resistances eliminate themselves as we go, and we get back to the first sensation, but this time without the resistance. In this way, the unpleasantness of the original sensation vanishes, and we give it the freedom to unfold and reveal its true nature. Usually, we don’t have to go far up the pile. It is enough to welcome the first resistance, to see that there is a resistance. To be aware of the resistance enables us to understand that we are not the resisting ego, that we are simply the witnessing presence in which the sensation and the resistance appear. We discover that there is nobody resisting, that the resistance and the one who dislikes are one and the same. There is nobody who dislikes other than the dislike itself.
Having preferences and aversions seems to be permanent.
No, we have many neutral moments. Even if it were true that we move from like to dislike, then, when the like is present, the dislike is not present and vice versa, so neither is permanent.
Since they are not permanent, they are not an intrinsic part of consciousness. Consciousness neither likes nor dislikes, although all likes and dislikes appear in it.
You said that happiness is related to universal consciousness. I understand consciousness, but I do not understand the universality of it.
The greatest certainty we can have is that we are conscious. In fact, it is the only certainty we can have. Just ask yourself, “Am I conscious now?” or, “Is consciousness present now?” Even though we don’t know what consciousness is, we know that the answer to that question is, “Yes.” That to which we refer in order to answer, “Yes,” is what we call consciousness. It is not an objective experience, but nevertheless we are absolutely certain of it. Just the fact that we see and understand these words shows that what we call consciousness is present, for how could we see or understand them if something wasn’t present to experience them? That “something” is what we call consciousness.
The next question to ask is, “Is this consciousness, whatever it is, personal, limited?” If we claim that it is limited, by the same token we imply that we are aware of its limitations, otherwise we could not legitimately make the claim. In this case that which is aware of the limitations would itself be what we call consciousness.
As long as we think that consciousness is individual, a belief system is still present. When we don’t know, we are open to the discovery of happiness. As long as these beliefs are present there will be reactions piled up one on top of another. These reactions occur because we are looking at things from the point of view of a body-mind, not from universal consciousness.
We have to investigate whether we have any actual experience of separation. There is certainly an experience of consciousness, right now and always. The mind will never know it in the same way it knows that two plus two equals four, in an objective way. However, we may know it in a different way, in identity, in the way that we know when we understand something, in a glimpse, or when we know that we are conscious. Since being conscious is not an objective experience we might ask ourselves, “How do I know that I am conscious?” Nevertheless, we are absolutely certain that we are conscious.
This knowledge of being conscious is derived from an experience that is not objective. Therefore there is a mode of knowledge that is not phenomenal, which is not objective, and which is beyond the scope of science. If we are open to this mode of knowledge it will reveal itself in a moment of love, understanding, or beauty, and in that moment we are beyond the mind.
For instance, when we communicate, when we have a conversation, there are moments when we are totally certain that we are communicating, that we are understanding each other. We may wonder how it is possible that we are truly talking about the same thing if we are two separate entities. If it is true that we are two separate consciousnesses, we could never be certain that we are talking about the same thing. If this is the case then, when we are communicating, either we are deluding ourselves or, at that moment, we are one single consciousness. If we think deeply about it, it is not possible for two separate consciousnesses to ever be certain that they are understanding each other because, in order to understand, a meeting, a merger, a fusion is required.
Are we deluding ourselves when we think, “I am conscious”? If we take a closer look at those times when we have a moment of understanding, love, or beauty, if we try to find from what experience this comes, we find that it comes from the same nonobjective experience, from the same timeless glimpse, as the experience that enables us to say, “I am conscious.” This is not phenomenal knowledge, but knowledge in identity, knowledge in being.
***
It is almost impossible to focus on really intense pain.
I do not recommend focusing on pain. On the contrary, I recommend welcoming it, not piling up resistance against it, opening oneself up to it, but at the same time allowing it to flow. If we focus on it, we block it. Let it flow completely.
My experience is that it is almost impossible to let it flow completely. It takes me over.
Let yourself be taken over and then welcome the reaction. That is all you can do and that’s fine. There is a Zen story of a teacher who is dying, subject to tremendous pain. He is screaming and his student asks, “Why are you screaming? Three years ago you had a terrible pain and you did not scream.” The teacher replied, “At that time I wasn’t dying!” We do whatever we can. Pain and pleasure are part of this body package.
At a moment of intense pain everything is abandoned.
Such an experience calls for total presence in the moment. In fact it leads us to the moment. We don’t have much room to think other than to think nothing.
In the moment it is what it is.
Consciousness is witnessing whatever it is. The very fact that we can speak about it shows that we are the witness of it. It is a very intense experience. In the tantra, an intense experience is said to be a very good opportunity for enlightenment, because it is a big buildup of energy. We just follow it, wherever it leads. Intense pleasure or intense pain are equally valid. If we eliminate the like and dislike part and take only the intensity of it they are not that different.
What do you mean by welcoming intense anger and frustration, as well as the hatred of it?
There is the expression of anger, the repression of anger, and there is welcoming. Expression is better than repression. Repression is tamasic, dull; it makes us insensitive. Expression is rajasic, it stirs up the passions. To welcome it, to love it, to go to the root of it through love and understanding is harmonious, sattvic.
So should I try not to focus on the child that is driving me mad and just allow these feelings?
We have to understand who it is that is being driven mad. Then, if we feel that it is “me,” we have to go deeply into the “me-ness” that is angry. Unless we have cleared up this side of the issue, anger is going to come up again and again out of this source. It is like a bag without a bottom. Anger, fear, and desire will continue to come out of this bag. Therefore when we feel anger, we have to ask ourselves, “Who is it that is angry?” We may start with thoughts like, “But he did that to me, how dare he!” However, after this level of thinking, we have to inquire who is the “me” that we are talking about. It is a feeling. “Me” will become a feeling, not just a thought. Then we have to investigate this feeling completely. It is important to see that we normally want to get rid of this angry reaction. Who wants to get rid of the reaction? It is the same “me.” Unless we investigate this situation, we will be caught endlessly in a cycle of reactivity and the desire to get rid of it. The same is true if our inquiry is motivated by a desire to change anything. We have to understand that the one who is angry and the one who wants to get rid of the anger are one and the same.
We have to go deeply into the feeling of “me” when it comes up. When we are perfectly happy it is not necessary to do that, but when we feel a sense of lack, a sense of misery, a problem, then we should investigate deeply who it is that is miserable at that moment. Go into it deeply. It is a feeling.
This “me-ness” is a perceived thing, like a seed. Let it grow completely, like a tree, and ask yourself, “Who is the true ‘me’? Is it the tree which is being witnessed or the consciousness in which it is appearing?”
If we welcome the anger completely it will either dissolve or lead us to this “me” again, and then we keep welcoming. We love our anger; we let it come out. We start with a little anger inside, then we may discover huge anger, frustration, fear and then, at the root of it, there is this ultimate fear.
***
What is the mind?
It is a question of definition. I define the mind as thought, perception, and sensation. It is a general term covering everything that it is perceived. It is generally considered to be a bag containing all our hopes, desires, fears, memories, and so on, but in fact we have never experienced such an organ, so we cannot claim that there is such a thing. Our actual experience is a flow of thoughts, sensations, and perce
ptions. They are not contained in the mind; they are what we call the mind, and they appear in consciousness. Everything that is perceived is mind stuff, phenomena, appearances, objects, whereas consciousness is the perceiving element, the witness of the mind stuff.
What about understanding?
If understanding is seen as a process, it is usually in two steps. There is a first step that takes place as an ongoing line of thought. This is a process in time, in which various aspects of a question are explored, and then there is a moment of understanding. This moment is timeless. It is instantaneous. This takes place beyond the mind, in a creative moment, in which the exploring thought comes to an end naturally. It leaves us in understanding. We are following the thought and then it dies in its source, which is consciousness. Therefore understanding takes place when a thought comes to an end. When understanding is present, the thought is not. We cannot say, therefore, that we understand a thought. Understanding has no object. It understands itself. Understanding is one of the ways in which consciousness reveals itself to itself.
Humor is another. When we get a joke, the joke has already vanished. The punch line comes to an end, it disappears, and then we laugh. This moment of humor, when we “get” the joke, is another moment in which consciousness reveals itself to itself. Actually it doesn’t take place in a moment. That “moment” is timeless, out of time, but when the mind reappears to formulate the experience, it mistakenly construes it as having taken place at a moment in time.
The Perfume of Silence Page 14
