RMore Qs and Answers

[Guest guest]

Raghu,

 

>> Dear Gary

>

> While in this discussion I have a Q to ask. There have been times when

> in anger I have sat and watched the anger and dissolved into laughter

> when I became aware that I watching my own anger. During meditation I

> have become aware of the silence and thoroughly enjoyed it. There have

> been times when I did not even know I was silent but realised after the

> event.

> The Q is, " Who is watching whom? or What is the seer and what is the seen?

> If the silence was the 'Self' then who was seeing it?

>

What do you hope to gain by these questions? Answering that question clearly

will help answer the others.

 

In general, mystical literature is confusing because it is not systematic.

Statements are jumbled together from different contexts. Because they are on

the same page, they look like they're in the same context and then become

very puzzling.

 

For example, when I say I experienced Pure Silence, I am really making a

complicated statement. When in Pure Silence, I am not there to experience

it, am I? The experience is one where my cognitive functions -- those that

identify an experience as mine, the subject's -- have been temporarily

suppressed. A moment later, through memory, I say that I experienced Pure

Silence. For in fact it was I who experienced it, with my cognitive

functions suppressed. There is no paradox here. Paradoxes appear to exist

because complex statements are taken to refer to a number of things as if

they were happening at the same time, when in fact that is impossible.

 

Consider Jan's question in this context.

 

> The deed is a fact, the doer a mere concept.

 

This sounds very profound and mystical. Woo! The doer is an illusion! But it

is really only saying that the deed is something you experience whereas the

concept of a doer is a theoretical one, just as a falling apple is something

you experience but to say that gravity causes it is a theoretical statement.

 

> Your very language shows that

> while the deed is certain, the doer is dubious; shifting responsibility is

> a game peculiarly human. Considering the endless list of factors required

> for anything to happen, one can only admit that everything is responsible

> for everything, however remote.

 

By failing to be clear about the status of the concept of doer or agent,

mystical literature often falls into the literal nonsense of " everything is

responsible for everything " . Yes, everything is connected; but we all know

what we mean by saying that I, Gary, and not Jan or Raghu, is responsible

for this email. Responsibility means different things in different contexts

and it is easy to generate pseudo-mysteries by making statements without

identifying the context within which it is to be understood.

 

> Doership is a myth born from the illusion

> of " me " and " mine " . I do not have the feeling that I am talking.

 

That is right. " I " is not a feeling, but a theoretical concept. It's a very

functional one. But when it is applied inappropriately, it becomes clinging

and causes suffering. To " do away with 'I' " throws the baby out with the

bathwater. That suggestion comes from the half-truth that " I " is an illusion

-- that is, not an experience, though it is based on experience, like an

useful theoretical concept. " I " , then, is a theoretical concept that causes

suffering when applied incorrectly, mindlessly. The solution is not to do

away with it, but to apply it correctly, mindfully.

 

> There is

> talking going on, that is all. Do you [really talk]? You hear yourself

> talking and you say: I talk. I have no objections to the conventions of

> your language, but they distort and destroy reality. A more accurate way of

> saying would have been: " There is talking, working, coming, going " . For

> anything to happen, the entire universe must coincide. It is wrong to

> believe that anything in particular can cause an event. Every cause is

> universal. Your very body would not exist without the entire universe

> contributing to its creation and survival. I am fully aware that things

> happen as they happen because the world is as it is. To affect the course

> of events, I must bring a new factor into the world and such factor can

> only be myself, the power of love and understanding focussed in me. (389)

 

This is true, but we need to identify the context in which it is useful. A

person can understand this paragraph perfectly and still be terrified of

death. The insight above is not sufficient to resolve clinging. What is? A

topic for another time.

 

Best to all,

 

Gary

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho