Saturday, August 19, 2006


F.: The follow-up questions being extensive, only the pointers that address them will be offered in order to make the posting relevant for all visitors to the site:

1. Such requests as “Where can I find more in writing on that” are never answered. It is only personas who want more and want to know more about what "others" said. You'll need to do your own research if that is what you want. This site is about wanting less (until finally nothing is desired) and about finding what You know (as opposed to what “others” know). Satsanga and reading are only recommended if one is on a seven-step “path” but does not where on the “path” he is, does not know that there is more of the “path” that remains to be traveled, or does not know the exact order in which the steps on the “path” must be taken. As for the Fully Realized, they do not need satsanga, readings, their "enlightenment" or anything else. Once my colon cancer was eliminated, no more time was spent hanging around cancer treatment centers. After that, AS IF living just happened. Post-Realization, there are no needs since there are no "need-ers."

2. There was and is no “divine nature” to Christ or to any person or anything. “Divine” vs. “not divine” is a duality. All dualities are lies.

3. Regarding your “surprising emotional reactions,” all reactions are generated by egotism and ego-states. Feelings can be felt by the Realized, but they do not result in a chain reaction of emotional intoxication. You can search the site at the top of this page for the difference in “emotions” and “feelings,” if you wish.

4. The only purpose for addressing the “choice vs. no choice” issue you raised is because that discussion can provide a vehicle for understanding the “not two.” That is, it can help clarify how the re-purified consciousness can abide as the I AM (and live out the relative existence in an AS IF fashion) even as the conscious-energy abides as the Absolute for the remainder of the manifestation. Because protégés are encouraged to question it all, the first question that most have raised about the issue of choice is, “How can there be choice is there is no one to make choices?” Excellent question, but they may as well also ask, “How can there be any I-Amness if I AM THAT?” or “How can eating happen if there is no eater?” Some ask, “But is it not a part of the understanding that conscious-energy has no personal identity, including 'chooser' or 'do-er'?” At that point, it must be understand that “choice” by definition means “alternative.” If that is understood, then it becomes clear that “alternatives” can happen during the relative existence Is-ness even as there are no “choosers,” Absolutely.

Take choice to point to the presence of alternatives as opposed to the no-choice of persons who have been programmed and conditioned and have no alternative but to think and behave in the way that their programming and conditioning dictate. No choice happens when personas are assumed as identities and as imaginary ego-states blindly determine what persons do (even as they believe that they are the authors of their existence and even as they believe they are do-ers). To the contrary, the understanding is this: post-realization, bidis were sold by “maharaj,” but there was no bidi-seller; with “floyd,” teaching happened but there was no teacher; eating happens even though there are no eaters.

Realization results in the understanding that there is no “chooser” even though relative existence alternatives do happen post-Realization. Those alternatives include an alternative to being driven, unconsciously, as a result of programming and conditioning and enculturation in all the ways that personas are driven. The teachings present an alternative during the relative existence to believing that the body-mind-personality is real, but there is no “one” to choose the alternative. There is an alternative in the relative existence to being driven, unconsciously, by the desires and wants and perceived needs of ego-states, yet the alternative cannot be chosen by any "chooser." The alternatives can only happen post-Realization, but Realization cannot be chosen either. It happens or it doesn’t, and alternatives happen or they don’t.

By contrast, understand the lies that persons believe: (1) that they “have power or can get power” and (2) that “they have the power to choose.” They do not. Programmed dogs and programmed persons do not differ at all. No alternative exists for persons other than for them to do what they were programmed to do. Realization results in the alternatives coming into play automatically, but they only come into play spontaneously during the relative, AS IF style of living that happens among those who are in touch with reality (that is, freed of entrapment in the no-choice existence of programmed persons…of corrupted consciousness.) The post-Realization manifestation is marked by spontaneous and AS IF, natural living. Natural living is marked by alternatives to the types of thinking and the types of behaviors that were inspired by the erroneous belief in the body-mind-personality during the pre-Realization period. Yes, the alternatives happen naturally and spontaneously and without thought post-Realization. If using the definition offered, it can then be understood how choices/alternatives can happen even in the absence of choosers, just as eating can happen even in the absence of eaters. Then it can be understood how abidance as the I-Amness can happen even as I AM THAT. Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued tomorrow]