APPLYING THE TEACHINGS IN THE “AS-IF” RELATIVE EXISTENCE, The Conclusion

From a site visitor: “You’ve mentioned personas as being at the core of all relative existence problems and you’ve mentioned the high divorce rate in the U.S. It appears my wife and I may be headed there. Is there anything in the teachings that can help?”

F.: Finally, to realize the true cause of “relative existence problems” in a “relationship” will allow you to avoid the waste of energy involved with seeking an answers to such questions as “How can we get back what seems to have been lost recently?” or “What has gone wrong lately that we can now repair?” Your e-mail asked for something that could “help.” Most couples who are making a last ditch effort and are seeking help to try to repair their failing “relationship” focus their attention on trying to resolve their most recent conflicts. They do not see that the cause of their problems was really at the beginning, not at the end. Sometimes, understanding that can provide relief, especially relief from the guilt that comes with the “If only I hadn’t done this or that” mentality. The Advaita pointer is that persons are set up in the very beginning to fail in their “relationships” because of the insanity of their programming, conditioning, and enculturation that only Realization can address.

Review the sequencing of roles mentioned two days ago that show the continuum that most “relationships” follow: from “strangers” to “acquaintances” to “friends” to “confidants and communicators” to “lovers” to “spouses” to “non-communicators” to "strangers again” (e.g., I don’t even know who you are) to “enemies” to “mortal enemies” who each want the other to die. (That’s why 59% of all women killed each year in the U.S.—and 41% of murdered men—are killed during a “relationship” breakup. It’s all rooted in the assumption of identities and the false belief that “If my roles are ending, then I am under personal attack, I am threatened and feel like I’m dying, and I must take strong, combative action to save myself--that is, my self-- and destroy my attacker.”)

What does that “I don’t even know who you are” comment really reveal? One marriage counselor said recently, “What people really mean when I hear them say ‘I don’t even know who you are’ during a counseling session is, ‘I thought you were a perfect clone of me—which is all that is acceptable to my ego—but now I have discovered that you’re not a perfect clone of me so I must be rid of you’.” The comment also reveals their egotistical belief that “I am perfect the way I am, I deserve to have a perfect mate, and a perfect mate is one that is always a mirror image of me.” Thus, the next Advaita pointer is that personas, driven by egotism, can only consider a “relationship” to be “good” if the other party involved is just like them. They are really only in love with self (and their “self” as reflected in another person). The actual but unconscious belief among, for example, arrogant heterosexuals who are trapped in their personas is, "What I really want is an opposite-sex version of me, and that is all that I will ever deem acceptable."

The problem with one party believing that the other should always be a perfect reflection of him or her is that persons are always unstable…always in a constant state of flux, and the way they are today will not be the way they are tomorrow. How could any partner, therefore, always parallel another person who is in such a state of constant fluctuation? So what is the Advaita understanding regarding conflict? All conflict requires that both parties have assumed personas, that both are invested in perpetuating their phony roles, and that both are willing to fight any who do not play the counterpart role as desired. Conflict also requires the presence of the arrogance that accompanies the assumption of ego-states, and it always requires personas that will do whatever is required to try to maintain their phony image.

If you look at your current “relationship” problems, what you might see if that your "relationship" began with two persons embroiled in three images each. In the beginning of your “relationship," she had (1) the image she held of herself (2) the phony image she showed the world and (3) the image you formed of her in your “mind” and then erroneously accepted as real. The same three images applied to you, so two persons with six images between them established a “relationship” based in six lies and are now shocked by the results. Are you seeing how the Advaitan teachings can move you closer to an understanding of the real cause of all of your current “relative existence problems”?

You asked originally if the Advaita teachings might be able to “help” with this situation. Understand first that any application of the teachings can only happen in the relative existence. Post-manifestation, there is no one to be helped. The farther along the "path" you move, the more you'll come to understand that there's no "one" to be helped now either. That point having been offered, you should be seeing now that it is the Advaita understanding that can eliminate the root causes that result in the breaking of “relationships”—whether personal, local, national, or international. (You should also see why "relationship" is in quote marks: if "not two" is understood, then the Oneness is understood and the lie of one thing relating to a second thing is revealed.)

Yet most persons in your position will never understand the source of their “relative existence problems” since they think they are dying and are preoccupied with the fight for preservation of their dissolving ego-states. Instead, such problems can usually only be avoided from the start if personas are absent and if no images are being assumed, nurtured, projected, or accepted as reality. If you followed the suggestions yesterday and read the archived postings on “what love is not,” you realize that “true love” (which is just a concept and a concept that can therefore only be discussed in relative terms) is only of the unconditional variety; however, consider how many “conditions” exist in most relationships, the unstated belief being, “You will only continue to earn my love if….”

Should you come to realize that You Are temporarily abiding as the I AM but that YOU ARE indeed the Absolute, then the false persona called “husband” that is in fear of dying could fade away, along with the suffering that it will surely generate otherwise. Two “paths” are before you. One will lead to an extension of the misery that personas always generate; the other can lead to awareness and freedom. When the consciousness is no longer manifested, that freedom will happen, but it could take place now even as the manifestation continues if Realization happens and if AS IF living follows. Please enter the silence of contemplation.

APPLYING THE TEACHINGS IN THE “AS-IF” RELATIVE EXISTENCE, Part Two

From a site visitor: “You’ve mentioned personas as being at the core of all relative existence problems and you’ve mentioned the high divorce rate in the U.S. It appears my wife and I may be headed there. Is there anything in the teachings that can help?”

F.: Yesterday, consideration #1 was offered; today, considerations #2-#6:

2. Also, in regards to the Advaita teachings providing “help” with your marriage, note that (1) Realization ends all perceived needs and desires and illusions, (2) any “application” of the teachings can only happen in the relative existence, but (3) to address what you seem to be requesting at this point, there are a few professional counselors who use an Advaita-based approach in their couples counseling; unfortunately for those seeking such counsel, they are as rare as the re-purified consciousness.

3. Another consideration is this: peace can come to persons experiencing a sense of “loss” if they see that they have spent years looking at a mirage, desiring a mirage, thinking a mirage was real, but then seeing that it was, indeed, only a mirage. To see that what you thought was true about your "relationship" but was actually just a lie might shock the body-mind-personality at first, but ultimately the truth really will set you free. What relative existence “help” can come by realizing that what you thought was real in that “relationship” was not at all the way it appeared to be? A new perspective, which can reduce the relative impact after the initial shock. For example, if you have two wallets and think that the one you lost had in it the $2000 you recently withdrew from the bank, imagine your distress. But if you return home and find the wallet with the money and realize that the other wallet you lost was the one that was empty, imagine the relief that would come from realizing the truth. Relatively speaking, you may have lost something, but relief comes from seeing the truth…from realizing that the “loss” was not nearly as great as you had at first imagined it to be. Seeing the emptiness of what you lost reduces the impact, but that clarity can only come when you witness objectively without the influence of various personas that feel like they are dying or needing to justify something or needing to defend something. (Certain of your ego-states may, at this point, take those words about "emptiness" to be offensive, but an attack on a mirage is itself a mirage. Invitations to see the truth are not assaults on anything except personas.)

4. At the top of the page, search the keywords “lost” and “loss” and read the postings you find that discuss those illusions. What you (your persona) thinks is being lost was never real to begin with.

5. To that end, you are invited to read the earlier postings on the site about “What True Love Is Not.” Go to the archives at the right and read the Dec 7 summative posting. Then, if you want, read all of the postings on “what love is not,” starting with Oct 29, 2005 and continuing into December 2005. (Most of the November 2005 postings were skipped while confined in a hospital after an accident). After those readings, pointer #3 above may be even more meaningful.

6. Finally, the teachings can only affect the relative existence because (a) the Realized live in an AS-IF style and because (b) after the consciousness unmanifests, there is no “one” or self” or “Self” to experience anything. If there are upcoming events that “you” are dreading, the ideal “help” would be in the form of Full Realization that would allow You to be free of the influence of the “one” or “ones” or “self” or “selves” that imagine that what they are experiencing is real.

All of that having been said, please understand that the intention is not to minimize what you’re feeling or what you may be feeling over the next days and months. The considerations are offered to afford an opportunity for you to move beyond these happenings, to feel whatever is felt, but to avoid being embroiled in a state of emotional intoxication. Emotional intoxication, which results when a persona feels threatened, will only set off a chain of actions and reactions that could aggravate whatever relative existence problems you think you’re already facing. Best regards in your efforts to become an objective observer and to detach from the happenings that you cannot control anyway. Please enter the silence of contemplation.

APPLYING THE TEACHINGS IN THE “AS-IF” RELATIVE EXISTENCE, Part One

From a site visitor: “You’ve mentioned personas as being at the core of all relative existence problems and you’ve mentioned the high divorce rate in the U.S. It appears my wife and I may be headed there. Is there anything in the teachings that can help?”

F.: There are certain “relative existence problems” that do not involve personas, but usually personas are—as you say—at the core of most. An example of problems that don’t deal have personas at the core might be the damage caused by tornadoes and hurricanes; yet even then personas are typically exposed when humans use their supernatural beliefs to try to explain totally natural events. Last week, a man living in the Midwest stood with a reporter before the remains of what had been his house but had been reduced to a slab littered with the remaining debris. The tornado that destroyed the home was a natural occurrence, but once this actor was placed on a national stage, the supernatural role that he had assumed said, “The good Lord wanted it so he took it…nothing I can do about it but rebuild.” The fact that he believes his “Lord” to be “good” after having destroyed his home exposes the dualistic thinking that accompanies personas (“good” vs. “bad”). He also exposed his religious programming—his learned ignorance—by expressing a belief...that a Lord is "good" even if he decides arbitrarily to destroy your home.

The invitation to you is to try a different tactic: try to separate the perceptions you have about what is happening in your relative existence from the reality and to allow the events to unfold without overlaying any unnatural or supernatural perspectives on these relative events you’re facing. Too, the pointer is offered that you can witness these proceedings as they happen without complicating the relative events, which is what will result if your personas drive you to take actions that would only exacerbate your problems. Next, search at the top of this page the phrase “as if” and see what it is like post-Realization to live "as if" any of this matters while knowing full well that it doesn’t. A different perspective might bring some relative relief.

That said, let the focus move from problems that evolve from natural influences to the “relative existence problems” that evolve from belief in personas. Why? Because the Advaita teachings might guide you to become free of the influence of those personas and the suffering and misery that they generate. With the problems in your “relationship,” personas—and their accompanying egotism—are always at the core. Look at the continuum of personas and roles that were probably played in this “relationship” you speak of:

Likely, the first roles being played were “strangers.” Next came “acquaintances” followed by “friends” followed by “confidants and communicators” followed by “lovers” followed by “spouses” followed by “non-communicators” followed by “strangers again” (e.g., I don’t even know who you are) followed by “enemies” followed by “mortal enemies” who will try to destroy each other. (In place of all that, why not allow the illusory ego-states to be destroyed?) It is suspected if you look objectively at the sequence above, you’ll see where most of those roles were assumed. How could a “relationship” based in so many lies and some many false identities and so much game-playing possibly succeed? The majority do not.

Is there anything in the teachings that might “help”? Here are a few considerations:

1. To see that there is no "one" who needs help would be one suggestion, but as embroiled as you likely are in the misperception that you’re dying, that will be difficult. To see that what is actually happening—that a role which was being played is about to be played no more—might allow you to transition beyond some of the relative-existence turmoil. That would allow you to realize that nothing is happening to You and that something merely appears to be happening to certain roles that were not you. But to see anything clearly when in a state of emotional intoxication is usually impossible, whether that emotional intoxication is being generated by a pending divorce, by a “death,” by a rousing religious service, by spiritual giantism, or by any persona that mistakenly believes it must be supported, that it is under attack, and that it must strike out to survive the attack...none of which is true. Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]

[Tomorrow: Considerations #2-#6]

REALIZATION CANNOT HAPPEN IF YOU’RE GOING SOMEWHERE, “DOING” SOMETHING, OR READING “HOLY” TEXTS

From a site visitor: “If you had one suggestion to give to persons like me who are just starting out on the journey, what would it be?”

F.: In a June 2006 posting, the following pointer was offered:

The Realization can only come from within; it can never come from without. Please enter the silence of contemplation in order to become aware of all of humankind’s lies that are without and thereby be able to realize the truth that can only be realized via the inner resource or the inner guru within.

A consideration for those just beginning the “journey” is this: to Realize Fully, you don’t have to read any of the world’s “holy texts,” you don’t have to “do” certain activities regularly, and you don’t have to go anywhere (except to a place of silence). In fact, if you’re going anywhere, if you’re attending religious services or spiritual meetings, if you’re listening to “holy men” on a regular basis, if you’re doing all kinds of activities, then you will never Realize. All of that activity, believed by many to be the key, is really a hindrance that blocks Realization. The answers are within to such questions about “how you got here,” “where you were three days prior to conception,” “why it is ego that wants to assign meaning to the relative existence,” and “what happens after ‘death’.” A few pointers, if taken into the quiet, can lead anyone with a properly functioning brain to enlightenment and awareness.

“Floyd’s” exhaustive efforts (which came about as a result of all of the “going” here and there and everywhere to try to find the answers) was described this way in the Advaitic novel The Twice-Stolen Necklace Murders:

In his energy-consuming search for salvation, he’d been dipped, dunked, sprayed, spayed, sprinkled, and neutered; in the quest for truth, he’d been blessed, cursed, cussed, lectured, scolded, and praised; in his pursuit of Life’s Meaning, he’d been communion’d, Om’d, grape-juiced, wined, ahsram’d, accepted, rejected, Mu’d, and yoga’d; in his chase for service-work-opportunities, he’d been pulverized, martinized, and frappéd; and in the endeavor to attain Life Eternal, he’d been baptized, Buddha’d, New Aged, powwow’d, Far Eastern Indianized, incense’d, sage’d, Tao’d, Peru’d, Tibet’d, washed in the blood, dunked in the waters, and purportedly purified.

Realization came in an instant after staying in the quiet and tapping into the inner resource. Forty years of listening to preachers and priests and rabbis and circuit speakers and world-famous authors and gurus did not provide the truth; forty years of studying all of the “holy texts” and all of the major religions did not do it; and forty years of reading all of the volumes on “The Best One-Hundred Spiritual Books Ever Written” list did not do it. Rather than revealing the truth, all of that nonsense resulted in the accumulation of more and more concepts that actually blocked seeing the truth. Realization came after having a vision, which you can experience right now at http://floydhenderson.com/article1.htm, and (through the content of that vision) finally seeing the seven steps that must be taken in order to attain Full Realization. You can attain that Realization if you read the vision and meditate upon its content (meaning consciously consider its substance and find the seven steps by using the inner guru). Please read the vision and then enter the silence of contemplation.

ONLY THE CONSCIOUSNESS SPEAKS

From a site visitor: "What motivates you, Floyd, to take the time to present and explain Realization?"

F.: Nothing motivates "me." There’s no “one” to be motivated. Can you motivate the energy that moves through your vacuum cleaner? What happens with this space you called “Floyd” just happens. Puccini’s words best describe AS IF living, post-Realization: “E passeranno I giorni,” he said, meaning “And the days will go by.” What happens…happens. The difference is, there is no do-er, no author. For a few years after Realization, teaching still happened in order to meet the basic need of the plant-food-body (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) but there was no “Teacher.” There being no “Teacher,” there certainly was no “Super Teacher.” Only the consciousness speaks, but your question does offer an opportunity for visitors to differentiate between when it is the pure consciousness that speaks and when it is the corrupted consciousness that speaks.

When the pure consciousness speaks, there is no “Speaker” or “Super Speaker.” The pure consciousness understands the functioning of the totality and may explicate that functioning…or not; if the consciousness is bastardized, then it will always be one or more personas—one or more of the phony, assumed identities—that will seem to be doing the talking. For example, from the assumed persona of “The Lover” will come words that are self-serving, that reinforce the false self and that try to engage “others” to fulfill the desires and wishes of that ego-state. That persona will say anything and everything that it thinks necessary to try to convince another person (a) to play the required counterpart for that role to exist and (b) to do what “The Lover” wants done to reinforce that false self.

Similarly, such self-serving words will come from every other ego-state assumed by personas. The words that emanate from any false personality will attempt to convince you to accept more roles and to become “The Spouse” or “The Protégé” or “The Follower” or “The Supporter” or “An Adherent” or “The Good Employee That Enhances Profits” of “The Republican” or “The Democrat” or “The Buddhist” or “The Advaitan” or “My Guru” or “The Jihadist” or “The Troops” or “The Atma” or “The Devotée” or “The Seeker” or “The Sage” or “The Spiritual Aspirant” or “The Yogi” or “The Christian” or “The Muslim” or “The Good Boy” or “The Good Girl” or “The Good Son” or “The Excellent Daughter,” ad infinitum. The corrupted consciousness will always try to manipulate a listener to accept more beliefs, to mimic certain behaviors, to give or contribute or serve, to assume more roles, to worship this or that, to follow certain dogma or to accept certain teachings, to accumulate more knowledge, to think a certain way, to emote, to accept all the tenets of a certain ideology, to attend this meeting or that meeting on a daily or weekly basis for life, to give your money to support them and the phony roles they are playing, or to join this or that group or organization or church or party.

The pure consciousness offers an invitation to the corrupted consciousness to de-accumulate…to be free of roles that set persons up to be manipulated, to be rather than do, to use any teachings only to the point that they free you of all concepts and teachings and ideologies, to feel without becoming emotionally intoxicated, to realize how it is that the consciousness came to be manifested, to realize how to live naturally, to see the insanity of unnatural or supernatural living during the relative existence, to realize how persons use beliefs and ideas to manipulate you, to know what happens when the consciousness is no longer manifested, and thereby to be free—totally free—of the insanity of programming and conditioning and enculturation.

It is the pure consciousness that is speaking if the invitation is to stop believing lies, if the invitation is to use reason and logic rather than being driven blindly by dogma and emotions, if the invitation is to give up the beliefs that result in so much fighting across the planet, if the invitation is to discard all of the nonsensical concepts that are rooted in ancient myths and superstitions that were dreamed up by ignorant people, if the invitation is to realize What You Really Are instead of believing you’re something that you’re not, if the invitation is to be free of fears and misery and suffering, if the invitation is to discard the ego-states that inspire arrogance and egotism, if the invitation is to abandon all phony images and to be genuine, and if the words assure you that you do not need to donate huge sums of money—for the entire remainder of your relative existence—in order to find peace or to understand the truth that is already within and which you can tap into if you hear the pure consciousness speak and then take what you hear into consideration. Please enter the silence of contemplation.

CONSCIOUSNESS, BRAIN, “MIND”

F.: Some recent visitors to the site are raising once more some of the questions that past visitors has asked about the differences in the consciousness, the brain, and the “mind”:

From a site visitor: “Going back through some earlier postings I saw where you said that we can either live naturally under the auspices of the brain or supernaturally and unnaturally under the auspices of the ‘mind.’ You mentioned the natural vs. supernatural and unnatural living again this week. Will you please explain? Thx.”

From a site visitor: “Whats the difference between the brain and the ‘mind?’ Is the ‘mind’ the aquired useless knowledge which strengthens the ego and sense of seperation from others? Is the brain the unconditioned consciousness? Does one want to identify with the brain, and disidentify from the mind? Or not identify with either?”

F.: Consciousness, the brain, and the “mind” are all different: the first is temporarily-manifested energy, the second is an assortment of elements functioning under the auspices of multiple forms of energy; and the third is an illusion. To understand the functioning of either consciousness or the brain, you must understand the way that chemical and electrical processes work in the body as well as how energy from the sun (that would otherwise be useless to humans) is made useful via the process of photosynthesis. To understand the functioning of the “mind,” you must understand how persons—via programming and conditioning and enculturation—can be taught lies and then store them away in that seat of delusion called the “mind.” In fact, there is no such thing as a “mind.” There is only the accumulation of old beliefs and traditional ideas and distorted concepts and all the other lies that persons cling to as truth.

The brain—or some component functioning as a brain—is common to most living things, including plants, animals, humans, birds, etc. (Some scientists cite the single-cell amoeba as an example of consciousness functioning even in the absence of a brain. Certain humans have also been shown to be “brain-dead” but the consciousness can remain manifested even then.) Even plants exhibit consciousness and—what appears to be—an ability to “reason,” although what is actually happening is the natural and spontaneous functioning of consciousness. For example, even before the sun comes up each morning, plants adjust the direction that their leaves are facing by micro-millimeters in order to gather as much light as possible. Plants are “aware” of the fact that the sun will rise at a slightly different point along the horizon each morning and they anticipate the slight, daily shifts in the points on the horizon where the sunlight will first appear each day.

Chemical and electrical energy allow the brain to function in a manner that would drive natural behavior and allow the consciousness to continue to function for whatever period it is manifested. The natural processes can be interrupted when the consciousness is bastardized via programming and conditioning and when the false concepts that are taken to be the truth by the illusory “mind” begin to override natural, intuitive functions.

Brains in humans function naturally as long as plant food is consumed to sustain a plant-food-space and to facilitate the cycling of energy-consciousness…as long as illness, disease, etc. are avoided. (Eating animals that ate plants can sustain the manifestation of the consciousness as well as eating the plants directly, but the key is always the plant). On the other hand, the members of only one species on the planet have the burden of having a “mind.” People move to the third level of the “journey” to Realization in order to try to find what is called "peace of mind," but there is no such thing because the “mind” is an illusion, the source of all lack of peace. It is nothing more than the accumulation of false concepts held to be true by the corrupted consciousness. It is that which triggers all delusion, all insane thoughts, endless thinking, mental chatter, etc.

As far as the types of living that happen, the example given was of the deer which lives naturally under the auspices of the brain while the consciousness is manifested. The other two types that were mentioned are unnatural living and supernatural living, which happen under the auspices of the corrupted consciousness, A.K.A., the “mind” and A.K.A., “beliefs, ideas, and concepts.” Unnatural living is marked by destructiveness (relatively speaking, of course) and supernatural living is marked by magical thinking that can also lead to a dualistic sense of “being better,” of “separation,” and thereby to destructive behavior as well (relatively speaking). The religious wars and religion-based fighting that have dominated the relative existence for more than 2000 years, almost without pause, is an example of the latter.

As for as the question regarding “dis-identification,” persons do not identify with any of the three. No one has either identified with the brain and said, “I am really the gray matter inside my skull”; furthermore, no one has ever said, “I am my mind” (although persons do mistakenly think that their beliefs help define “who they are”). What persons do say, after programming and after bastardization of the consciousness, is “I am ____,” and they fill in the blank with the various roles that have been dreamed up and assigned to them by their cultures. Those roles are assumed as identities because of the “mind” (which is merely the accumulated, nonsensical clusters of ideas, beliefs and concepts that persons believe are true). Thirdly, while persons never identify with the consciousness either, those on the “path” to Realization can identify with the consciousness for a time when they understand the Is-ness (the "beingness") and can say “I AM” without following that statement with any other word. But later, the re-purified consciousness becomes aware that it is not even the temporarily-manifested consciousness, becomes aware that it is actually the Absolute which is abiding temporarily as the pure consciousness, and becomes aware that the abidance as the pure consciousness is finite and that only the Absolute is eternal.

Read past postings on the site for more, if you choose, including the 2006 entries of February 25, March 3, 9, 18, 21, and May 26. For more discussion of the topic, you can type in the words “mind brain” at the top of this page and search the site. Please enter the silence of contemplation.

ARE YOU LIVING AS THE DEER LIVE OR AS PERSONS LIVE?

From a site visitor: “So I read the posts from the last three days and now instead of questioning past beliefs, I’m questioning what I thought I understood about the A-V teachings but maybe don’t. How do you know, for sure, if you’re trapped in one or more ego-states?”

F.: “First, questioning is the proper step for you right now. The assumption of ego-states as identities is always accompanied by egotism, as well as the other ego-state-defense-mechanisms that phony roles use, in order to try to sustain the illusion that they're real. Egotism is always present once persons assume a phony identity. So what are some signs that you’re “trapped in one or more ego-states”? Use the lifestyle of the deer as a test to contrast (a) natural, ego-free, AS IF living with (b) the lifestyle of personas and their accompanying egotism:

A deer does not want to be seen and does not want to “stand out.” It will typically do what is required to blend in with its environment and “fade into the background.” A deer does not like to make noise and does not want to be heard. It can move along a thousand-yard path through the woods and tread so gently that a human fifty steps away would not hear it. A deer has no “mind” so it engages in no abnormal thinking. A deer lives naturally, not unnaturally and not supernaturally. A deer does not care about appearance, is not cruel, is not envious, does not feel entitled, is not afraid of the quiet, is not impulsive, is not religious or spiritual, is not self-contradictory or moody or unpredictable or unstable, does not overeat, does not like chaos, and does not eat fermented berries in an effort to become intoxicated and to “escape.”

By contrast, a persona that is working to establish and maintain a false image wants to be seen. Persons typically do what is required to stand out and to be noticed. Persons exhibit arrogance and egotism, and as they work to create and maintain an image, they want to be heard. Persons hate the silence and love the noise…especially the noise that they generate, including speeches, informal talks, sermons, diatribes, loud music, lectures, appearances, screaming, shouting, etc. Persons, with their incessantly active “minds,” are engaged regularly in their abnormal thoughts. Persons live unnaturally or supernaturally instead of naturally and are often addicted to chaos. They often use substances or certain behaviors to try to escape, or at least to forget temporarily, the misery or suffering or boredom or turmoil that comes with all the roles that they have assumed and are playing.

Persons trapped in their ego-based narcissism must surround themselves with other persons in order to have an audience. They need to be seen, and they require constant praise and applause and positive feedback. The deer experience no narcissism. Narcissism is labeled as a “personality disorder” by professionals, and rightly so. Humans must be attached to one or more personas in order to exhibit the traits of the disorder. As a result of their egotism and body-mind-personality identification, persons care about appearance, can be charming one moment and cruel the next, are envious, feel entitled, are afraid of the quiet, are impulsive, often assume religious or spiritual personas, and are self-contradictory or moody or unpredictable as a result of living a lie.

To know if you are trapped in one or more ego-states, find the honest answer to the question, “Are you living in the fashion of a deer, or are you living the way that all persons live in their relative existence?” Please enter the silence of contemplation.

REIFICATION and HYPOSTATIZATION: Humanity’s Most Popular Instruments for Perpetuating Distortion and Preventing Realization, The Conclusion

F.: Reification and hypostatization—just like all types of reasoning fallacies—reinforce persons’ belief in dualities by reinforcing a belief in subjects-objects: “I (subject) am this (object)” or “I (subject) am that (object)” and “He (subject) is God (object).” In each case, (a) an abstract concept or unsupportable theory is dreamed up and then taken to be concrete and real and (b) a belief exists that dualities can be real and that “two things can relate to each other.” Once personas evolve and once they are taken to be real identities, then emotional intoxication always follows. And when emotional intoxication manifests alongside such reasoning fallacies as reification and hypostatization, then not only do personas express their delusional beliefs such as “An invisible male entity is God” but the emotional intoxication will also shift their delusion to the next level and personas will state “God loves me” and “I love Him” or “I am husband and I have the right to kill anyone who tries to end that role” or “I am employee and I will kill anyone who tries to destroy that role by firing me.”

Much confusion exists when pointers about witnessing are offered during satsanga without distinguishing between the functioning of “the witness” as opposed to the functioning of “The Pure Witness/The True Self.” The witness can observe objects objectively and thereby no longer be fooled by appearance (such as, “I see now that this world is an illusion” or “I see that the body I'm witnessing in the mirror is not Me” or “I see that nothing in the relative existence is as it appears to be.”) But that is still subject-object witnessing: “I (subject) witness that” (object). Though it is clear witnessing, it is not pure witnessing. The PURE WITNESS, on the other hand, has transcended all subject-object witnessing and sees only the Oneness instead.

So for those who would purify the consciousness, what Advaitan course is to be followed? The test is this: “Is it logical and reasonable to embroil oneself in unnatural living, in magical and supernatural living, in knowledge-acquisition, in service, or in worship, all of which are rooted in dualities (such as 'I worship Him')?” Or, “Is it logical and reasonable to find a way to live naturally in an awareness of the reality of the unicity and the lies of duality?” It has been said that “the truth will set you free, but it will infuriate you first.” What will be infuriated is the corrupted consciousness when its assumed ego-states feel challenged by any pointer that they are phony, false, imaginary, and rooted in the nonsense that reasoning fallacies always generate. The truth is always an abhorrence to persons.

The softer, easier approach for many would-be “seekers” seems to be to sit in a room (or in a chat room nowadays) and discuss bhakta, Samadhi, atman, Upanishad, favorite gurus, buddhi, sat-chit-ananda, yoga, chidakash, isvara, satsanga, arati, prana, or sadhana. Rather than using thorns to remove thorns and then tossing away all thorns, now thorns are being accumulated by personas who, in many cases, love to display their “spirituality” and their "spiritual knowledge." Rather than de-accumulating, more and more spiritual knowledge (learned ignorance) is accumulated, and with all such accumulating, more ego-states and egotism are accumulated as well. And those who love their assumed ego-state of "Advaitan" or "Spiritual Giant" will hate that truth as well.

The approach that will lead to Full Realization is to find the phony images being nurtured; to find the arrogance and egotism and all the other defense mechanisms that are used to support false identities; to see how reasoning fallacies generate nonsense and foolishness; to see where one has been a fool by not knowing that she/he is beyond both the beingness and the non-beingness; to see that beliefs are nothing more than fabrications dreamed up by persons; to see that all role-playing is nothing more than the posturing of personas; and to see that all fighting and separation results from efforts by personas to sustain their phony images. Please enter the silence of contemplation.

REIFICATION and HYPOSTATIZATION: Humanity’s Most Popular Instruments for Perpetuating Distortion and Preventing Realization, Part Two

F.: Examples of hypostatization often come from those who have fixated at the third of seven steps to Realization. One illustration of hypostatization can be found in the statement, “I can’t believe that a perfect, loving, all-powerful god that has created humans would put us here and not control us in order to prevent rape and murder and war and torture. It must be the fault of humans who are abusing free will and not the fault of any ineptness on the part of god.” Review the definition: “Hypostatization is the process whereby a conceptual entity is construed to be real and believed to actually exist. It inspires even intelligent persons to consider abstract concepts to be real.” One abstract idea that the speaker above believes to be real is that there exists “a creator-sustainer-destroyer god.” [Actually, that modern version of god came about when Abraham disputed the common belief of his day in multiple gods, including some that created, some that sustained, and some that destroyed. When he began to announce that "there is only one god," those who believed him said "Okay" and then merely rolled all those gods into one, resulting in the schizo god of Abraham that will create you, will sustain you if you have faith, but will destroy you and make you suffer pain and misery for eternity if he chooses.] So is that god in charge of sustaining or in charge of destroying or, dualistically, in charge of both? The speaker's inability to reason also inspires him to believe that an omnipotent god that supposedly has the power to stop rape, murder, war, and torture—but does not do so—is still “perfect”; thus, the speaker finds another object to blame, thereby enabling him to sustain the image he has of his god as being "loving" even as he allows his creations to suffer in spite of the fact that he has to power to stop the suffering...but doesn't. Other concepts include “all-powerful” which evolved into the concept of “Higher Power.” An abstract idea is given human traits and considered to have a real human-like form, right down to its male gender. Where humans have mentally created a god in their image, they claim that a god “created humans” in his image.

Another example of hypostatization can be found in the statement, “I believe that the universe is guiding me in all that I do.” Review the definition: “Hypostatization is the process whereby a conceptual entity is construed to be real and believed to actually exist. It inspires even intelligent person to consider abstract concepts to be real.” The “universe” can refer to “everything that exists.” Does everything that exists care about you? If some care that you live but some could not care less if you die, which determines your fate? The “universe” can also refer to “the sum total of all galaxies, suns, planets, outer space debris, and the mostly empty space in which they move.” Are galaxies and suns and planets and outer space debris and mostly empty space guiding you? How is that happening, exactly? If the galaxies were able to determine what you and all others do, would they? Why would planets and suns and mostly empty space care about you or about others or about anything? Only WHO’s care, and the universe is not a WHO. Of course the comment is usually spoken by those who are actually assuming religious roles but who want to appear to be "so evolved beyond religious people" that they no longer speak of “a male god” but talk in a way that they believe is more cerebral or spiritual. In fact, all WHO’S are false. WHO’s are the imaginary ego-states that are assumed by personas to define who they are. Their personas are the WHO's that have agendas and that care about their imagined desires and imagined fears. [The next time you're upset about something or someone, pause to ask, "WHO really cares about this?" and you'll find which ego-state is experiencing anger over some offense or slight.] Furthermore, a related type of reasoning fallacy, reification, also prevents Realization from happening.

Reification is the treatment of an analytic or abstract relationship as though it were a concrete entity. It is that which inspires persons to believe that an abstraction can actually have concrete or material existence. Some have spoken in this regard of the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness” whereby the abstract is mistaken for the concrete. Of course, all concepts about “relationships” are false, based in the dualistic notion that there is not One but that there are multiplicities of things and people and that “A” can relate to “B” rather than realizing that there is only “A,” really.

For example, “I am a husband.” Only in the most recent days of the 14-million-year history of human-like forms did humans dream up the concepts of “marriage,” “wife,” and “husband” (the concept of “marriage” and the accompanying roles having first been mentioned only recently in the annals of “human history”…around 1200 A.D.) In the quote above, see the fallacy of reification as an abstract concept (“husband”) is treated as if it were a concrete entity. The delusion is this: “What I looked at yesterday in the mirror and took to be ‘me’ before my wedding is very different from what I am seeing in the mirror today. Today, when I look in the mirror, what I really see now is...a husband.”

Further examples can be seen in all of the dualistic “relationships” that mark this culture: employee-employee; parent-child; the governors-the governed; the rulers-the ruled, ad infinitum. Are there dualities that you believe to be real? Are there personas that your culture has assigned to you that you have unquestioningly accepted as definitions of who or what you are? Do you speak of external, conceptual, abstract powers or forces as if they are real? Do you still believe in some supernatural entity and, in spite of its contradictory nature, still believe that entity can be real? Do you believe that an authority that would be willing to make you suffer forever is, at the same time, “loving you, unconditionally”? Are you identifying some fallacies in reasoning that have led you to take as fact the nonsense that you've been exposed to in your culture? Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]

REIFICATION and HYPOSTATIZATION: Humanity’s Most Popular Instruments for Perpetuating Distortion and Preventing Realization, Part One

F.: It has been said that “those who are not enlightened live in the darkness,” but what does that mean? Several e-mails recently have asked, “If it’s all relative and only the Absolute is real, why should anyone concern himself with trying to Realize?” Only those in darkness would ask. To Realize means to re-purify the bastardized consciousness, to stop believing lies, to be free of ignorance, to stop living under the blind influence of programming and conditioning that makes persons behave like Pavlovian dogs, to be free of beliefs—and fighting about beliefs—that are based in ancient myths and superstitions, to be in touch with reality, to stop being insane, to know What You Are instead of believing that you are something that you are not, to be free of all fears, and to be free of the misery and suffering that are the result of the arrogance and egotism that accompany adopted, but false, identities. So you may stop asking “Why Realize?” and understand that you are really asking:

· Why should I not want the consciousness bastardized and corrupted?
· Why should I want to stop believing lies?
· Why should I not want to stay ignorant?
· Why should I want to stop living under the blind influence of programming and conditioning that makes me live like a Pavlovian dog?
· Why should I want to give up beliefs that result in so much fighting across the planet?
· Why should I want to give up the nonsense that is rooted in ancient myths and superstitions that were dreamed up by ignorant people?
· Why should I want to be in touch with reality?
· Why should I want to stop being insane?
· Why should I want to know What I Really Am instead of believing that I’m something that I’m not?
· Why should I want to be free of all fears?
· Why should I want to be free of misery and suffering?
· Why should I not want to continue to be arrogant and egotistical?
· Why should I want to give up my phony image and be genuine and Real?

“The Dark Ages” in Europe was that period in which the popularity of superstitious, religious and supernatural beliefs inspired fools to burn at the stake the intellectuals, the scientists and the intelligentsia in their communities. It was a period when the ignorant gave value to traditions (doing things based on the argument that “we’ve always done it that way”) and characterized by widespread irrationality, superstition, and tyranny among the population. It was a period in which the artists and their arts were repressed and when education was seen as the enemy of humankind rather than as an asset in the relative existence. It was an age when logic and intelligence were scorned, when stupidity was prized, and when widespread ignorance resulted in wars and killing and death and disease that obliterated 40% of the population of Europe. It was, in short, a period when Realization was ignored and reification and hypostatization became popular.

Conversely, “The Age of Enlightenment,” or “The Age of Reason” was an intellectual movement in which a renewed interest in aesthetics and logic returned after “The Dark Ages.” Leaders with some degree of awareness set out to free their cultures of the constraints of tradition, irrationality, superstition, and tyranny. In that period of enlightenment were sown the seeds of all the democratic movements that eventually swept across Europe and then to other continents, supporting the fact that enlightenment and realization are about being free…totally free. A study of history shows that the periods of purified consciousness and corrupted consciousness have moved like a pendulum as one age prefers the ignorance and another prefers something different and swings back toward enlightenment. During the periods of darkness, humanity’s most popular instruments for perpetuating distortion and preventing Realization have been fallacies in reasoning, and it may be that no other time in history has seen as many persons roaming the planet with no ability to reason clearly as now.

Realization is about realizing when a lie is a lie as well as about realizing what the truth actually is. Persons (the non-Realized) are irrational and illogical, and their reasoning is marked by one fallacy after another. They believe lies and do not know the truth, and two related types of reasoning fallacies that are at the heart of the ignorance in which persons are trapped include hypostatization and reification.

Hypostatization is the process whereby a conceptual entity is construed to be real and believed to actually exist. Hypostatization in ancient Greek and Rome, for example, inspired the masses to belief the stories about gods from other worlds that were in charge of all events on this planet…including rain, wars, human fertilization, hurricanes, plant fertilization, crop successes, healing, death, and crop failures. It is hypostatization that inspires even intelligent person—made into fools via programming—to consider abstract concepts to be real.

The considerations for today are (1) Can you find any legitimate reasons for following the steps to Full Realization? (2) Can you find any instances when you’ve allowed your programmers and conditioners to convince you that their abstract ideas are actually real? Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]

“IS IT MORE ADVAITA OR MORE VEDANTA?”

From a site visitor: “You said in a post that, ‘To grasp the Original Understanding, focus more on the ‘advaita’ and less on the ‘veda’ or ‘vedanta’ or any other writings or concepts dreamed up by men and thought to be "holy." Why would your site be called Advaita Vedanta if you want the focus to be on the advaita part? I mean, it is more advaita or more Vedanta or equal parts of both?”

F.: A few questions shall be offered in response: Is it the recipe written in the book, or is it the actual eating, that sustains the plant-food body? In the 14-million-year history of humanlike forms, which was more prevalent: the Original Understanding of “not two” or books written about “not two”? Why would there be any "need" for “Vedanta” if the awareness of the “advaita” had not been lost as a result of the ignorance generated by conditioning, programming, and enculturation? It has been observed that some persons spend a lifetime studying the Vedas, the Aranyakas, or the Upanishads (or the Qur’an or the Bible or the Torah) and still understand nothing, while some spend a few carefully-prepared-for moments in the silence and come to understand the “not two” and the entire functioning of the totality. Which would you suggest should be the focus?

The pointer was offered for those protégés who have moved beyond the wet charcoal stage. “Vedanta” has been variously used to refer to the culmination or essence of the Vedas or to that which is after the Vedas or to that which is beyond the Vedas or to refer to the end of the Vedas—constituted by the series of literature termed as the Aranyakas of which the Upanishads form the chief part. But in fact, all of that refers to words, words, and more words. What happens to the protégé who has traveled far enough along the “path” that she/he reaches a stage that no words can explain? There comes a point when the outer resources must be cast aside. At that point, only the inner resource can reveal what must be understood for Full Realization to happen. The truth cannot be stated, so if it is only that inner guru that can ultimately reveal what is to be realized, wherefore any need to continuously read words that are considered “holy”? The suggestion is then to move “beyond the Vedas and Upanishads,” to enter the silence, to discard all words and dogma and concepts and lies, and to allow the visualization of reality and truth to happen.

That understanding can be called “beyond” because it is the understanding that is beyond anything that words can state. At that point, focus on the Vedas end, focus on gurus end, focus on the self and the Self end, focus on any belief in "this world" ends, the speaking of words and the listening to words ends, and the silence begins. Go beyond the statements in the Vedas and at the end of the Vedas, go beyond the statements in the Torah or the Bible or the Qu’ran and in any other book reported to be “holy” and find the truth that cannot be written or stated. All concepts must be discarded for the Realization to happen, but persons prefer to pick and choose, to decide which beliefs should be kept because they’re “right” and which should be tossed because they’re “wrong.” There’s nothing to pick and choose because no beliefs are “right.” They’re all nothing more than ideas that were dreamed up by men with the primary addiction (a desire to control) and thus with the secondary desire (the desire to have power in order to control).

All ideas are merely the products of those types of men, dreamed up and passed on and believed in because the ideas appealed to certain persons at certain times...persons whose consciousness was corrupted by programming and conditioning and enculturation and who wanted to tell others how to think, what to believe, and how to behave properly. The Nisarga (natural) approach to the Advaita teaching invites protégés to abandon thinking (because it is generated by the false “mind”), to abandon beliefs (which are concepts dreamed up by controlling persons), to find all of the lies, and then to seek within for the advaita truth that has always been known but has been forgotten as a result of programming. Then the remainder of the manifestation can happen naturally in the AS IF fashion.

The arrogant who want power in order to control other persons have their tools of manipulation that are based in duality and which include ideas, beliefs, attitudes, distortions, etc. To be free of the effects of programming, conditioning, and enculturation, you must refuse to let them use their tools on you by discarding what was built with those tools, namely, your “mind.” Then you’ll be free of the influence of those who would control you in their efforts to empower themselves, that is, in their efforts to sustain their false “self” or “selves” or personas. Realization results in a sense of fulfillment, of completion and of wholeness. Reading recipe books but never getting the meal results in a false sense of fulfillment, in a sense of incompletion, and in a nagging sensation that something is still missing. Turn from all “holy” books and understand the “not two.” Please enter the silence of contemplation.
[TOMORROW: The Two Tools Used Most Often to Perpetuate Distortion and Prevent Realization: Reification and Hypostatization]

SATSANGA, ENLIGHTENMENT, AND REALIZATION DEAL WITH THE RELATIVE EXISTENCE ONLY, The Conclusion

F.: Any discussion of any concepts, including concepts such as "choice" or "alternatives," applies to the relative only. That said, understand that the re-purification of the consciousness is a process. Full sanity refers to the “no-mind” state, but the consciousness cannot move directly from the state of being bastardized to the “no-mind” state of being pure. There is an intermediate state where a “working mind” begins to manifest as the “thinking mind” dissolves. It is during that “working mind” state that alternatives are seen as the protégé on the “path” begins to realize that “Thought A or Behavior A” is insane—is continuously resulting in misery and suffering—and that “Thought B or Behavior B” does not result in misery and suffering. Eventually, even the “working mind” disappears, the “no-mind” state evolves, thinking ends, and choosing ends because all happens spontaneously; but even then alternatives (to what was being inspired by the bastardized consciousness during the pre-Realization days) can be witnessed. Apply all of that to persons who are walking about in their sleep while appearing to be awake, to those that are now awake, to persons thinking they are choosing when they are not, and to all that happens spontaneously. Consider the act of rolling over as another example.

Those who are asleep can roll over in the same way that someone awake can roll over. Those asleep are not consciously choosing to roll over when they are uncomfortable, but they roll over nevertheless. Those awake can choose to roll over if uncomfortable but eventually the rolling over when uncomfortable just starts to happen spontaneously among the awakened. As the process of the evolution of the consciousness happens, protégés begin to realize that they have generated painful experiences in the relative existence as a result of their programming, their ideas, their emotions, and their beliefs. As the consciousness further evolves toward a state of re-purification, they see that there is no such thing as their ideas or their beliefs and that there are only the ideas and beliefs that were dreamed up by persons. Those in the awakening process see that they have never had any ideas of their own and simply adopted the beliefs of “others” and imagined them to be their own. At that point, they understand why, pre-Realization, they had no alternative but to behave or think in the way that they were programmed to behave and to think.

When Fully Realized and living naturally, choice vs. no choice is a moot issue. The deer appears to “choose” to run away if startled rather than ignoring what might be a physical threat and continuing to graze instead. In fact, the fleeing—like the grazing and the running away—are all happening automatically. Conditioned persons do things that are automatic too, but they happen unconsciously as a result of being programmed and conditioned, leaving persons unawake, unaware, and unconscious even when they appear to be conscious. The deer has no mind with which to think, so that which happens without thinking is an “automatic action,” resulting from the functioning of inner resources (including the sixth sense, the instincts, the intuition, and the brain) rather than from the corrupted consciousness and a “mind.” Consider “having no choice” to be the condition that exists during the relative existence when the consciousness has been so corrupted that it functions in an unnatural or supernatural manner. Consider choice to be an alternate way of moving through the relative existence—specifically, a sane and natural way—that happens as a result the re-purification of the formerly corrupted consciousness and as a result of once again being in touch with the inner resource. At that point, efforts to engage with outer resources ends, including gurus, jnanis, gods, "holy" writings, etc.

Of course the realized do not decide anything, their being no decider, no “one” to decide, and no “do-er” to do anything if it were decided. Only as the antithesis of “the loss of the ability to choose as a result of having been programmed” should the concept of choice and alternatives even be discussed. That said, it’s really all relative existence “stuff,” but to understand how “choices can happen even in the absence of a chooser” is to understand how the relative existence can happen naturally after persons are in touch with reality and abiding as the Absolute. Abiding as the Absolute and abiding as the Amness are not two things happening simultaneously. Only one thing Is, and That Which Is Real understands It Is the Real, understands what is temporarily manifested, and understands that all appearances in the relative existence are false. The Absolute while manifested understands what is manifested and understands what is illusion. Likewise, it understands how eating can happen without the presence of an eater, how alternatives can happen without the presence of any chooser selecting alternatives, how teaching can happen without the presence of a teacher, and how bidis were sold without the presence of any seller.

5. As for your next query, the Realized follow no rules. There are no moral absolutes in a relative existence. That concept is just another lie, set forth by those who would define "moral" and try to make all people adhere to their "standards." On the other hand, the way that the natural, AS IF living happens post-Realization has inspired many personas who think they are “in a position to know what is moral and in a position to judge others” to draw the conclusion that “the Realized live morally, not immorally.” The Realized know that “moral vs. immoral” is just another dualistic lie.

6. As for the other queries, you may search the site for pointers on your remaining questions. Generally, questions that arrive and that might have relevance to protégés and visitors on the “path” are answered on the site. The quantity of e-mails that are received prohibits on-going, one-on-one dialogues, but all are welcome to use the search tool at the top of this page to locate additional explications. The complete content of over 400 postings can be searched rapidly and can likely retrieve additional pointers on most Advaita topics.

Finally, since “relevance” and “application” are restricted to the relative existence, it can be seen ultimately that satsanga, enlightenment, and Realization are really the stuff of the relative existence as well. Some have said, “Oh no, you are very wrong. My guru speaks of metaphysical, spiritual issues that are relevant and true, and my daily disciplines are very spiritual practices.” Okay, but WHO is going to be present, either during the relative existence or post-manifestation, to experience anything metaphysical? WHO thinks he is doing something that is spiritual? WHO thinks it is a guru that is speaking?

Finally, what response, therefore, can be made to your question about “Why realize…what is the benefit?” Any so-called “benefit” of Realization can only apply in the relative. “Peace” is not a post-manifestation option since there is no one to experience peace or distress or anger or anything else. All experiencing is relative, so anything taken to be a spiritual experience is a lie. Only ego-states can experience, so anyone claiming to have had a spiritual experience is simply admitting that he or she has assumed the role of a “Spiritual Person/Persona” which is simply another false identity. Any talk about suffering or misery or relief or peace or enlightenment or benefit is only relevant to the relative existence for that period during which the consciousness is temporarily manifested. Post-manifestation, there is no suffering—and thus no reward since dualities are lies—and therefore no misery or relief or peace or enlightenment or benefit or loss either. To abide as the Absolute is to be free of belief in any of those concepts during the manifestation, but either way, freedom from concepts and the misery and suffering they generate will end, either “now” via Realization or “later” as the manifested energy is released into the universal pool of conscious-energy where there is no "one" to either understand or to experience. Please enter the silence of contemplation.
[TOMORROW: “Is it more advaita or more Vedanta?”]

SATSANGA, ENLIGHTENMENT, AND REALIZATION DEAL WITH THE RELATIVE EXISTENCE ONLY, Part Two

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]

SATSANGA, ENLIGHTENMENT, AND REALIZATION DEAL WITH THE RELATIVE EXISTENCE ONLY, Part One

From a site visitor: I am very pleased to discover your website and blog. I found them while googling for the relations between the teachings of Jesus and Advaita Vedanta which are the current focus of my advaitic explorations.

F.: An excellent place to start for one exposed to Christian dogma, which has nothing to do with the teachings offered by Jesus from age 31-33. Early on, he talked the "company line" because he was programmed with Jewish doctrine. After his desert years, where he was exposed to the teachings of the Gnostics and the Nazarenes (not citizens of a town as is mistakenly taught but adherents to a philosophy), the consciousness that had been corrupted by his early conditioning began to be purified when he received the Advaita teachings which he shared occasionally during his last three years. (As with all who share the Advaita teachings, pointers are offered at the level of the audience, so to one he talked about "a mansion with many rooms" but to the next he said that "no one will ever see heaven...it is within.") Too, the teachings evolved as the re-purification of the consciousness evolved, so some other supposed contradictions could be expected also. Without understanding Advaita and the way pointers are adjusted depending on the audience, so-called Christians haven’t a clue what Jesus was talking about, especially those trained in seminaries.

VISITOR: My first question is: why "become" realized? I can see its "benefit" in gaining an inner peace (but this is only a concept, therefore an illusion). Is it because realization leads to abandoning the fictions of samsara and rebirth, thus releasing one from this mind-body-world complex?
F.: Your question is one that is often raised and that sometimes ends when what is called "Applied Advaita" on this site is understood. What must be seen is that there is no duality involved in the I AM THAT; I AM. If that is understood, then it is known that You Are the Absolute, You Are presently abiding as the I AM, and the I AM THAT; I AM is not two. As long as the I AM continues (as long as the conscious-energy is manifested thusly) then “life” can happen either while awake or while sleepwalking.

Sleepwalking can be problematic, but that is relatively speaking. In terms of the Absolute, whether the manifestation happens while awake or while asleep matters not at all and, yes, "benefits" are illusions. Relatedly, as far as "inner peace," Realization does not even guarantee that. The Realized, being awake rather than asleep, can still run the full gamut of feelings and usually do so more than those still asleep. So even that is not a "benefit." But to "apply" the teachings is to know that (1) there is no one to apply anything or to benefit from anything or to gain anything or to lose anything but that you can then (2) live AS IF, that is, can witness the happenings that happen, can know the lies, can know what is true, can be in touch with reality, and can witness all without becoming emotionally intoxicated.

Post-realization, the basic requirements of a "daughter" and a "wife" and "floyd" remained: food, clothing, shelter, etc. Since those basic requirements remained, work had to continue to happen in order for income to happen. What changed was that an ego-state ended that no longer determined what the body did. Yes, the "mind" was also released, as you imply. Yes, the world-complex dissolved after the illusory world faded. But the bottom line is that no one ever chooses to realize or not. The non-Realized cannot choose anything. Choice happens only post-Realization during the I AM, AS IF-phase of the relative existence that happens during the remainder of the manifestation of the re-purified consciousness. (The choice-no choice topic will be discussed in detail tomorrow.)

Rather than deciding if one will realize or not, therefore, see that it merely happens...or not. If it doesn't, then experiences will continue to be experienced by personas and misery will accompany those. If it does happen, feelings will still be felt but emotional intoxication will not. So you might find the answer to "Why Realize" on your own if you imagine for a moment that you're trying to do an intervention with a adult-aged child who is abusing alcohol, trying to escape, believing all his lies, clinging to the insane distortions that are generated by his warped mind, preferring to stay asleep rather than wake up to the truth, staying intoxicated, suffering the misery of conduct generated under the influence, and suffering the pain of hangover between drinking bouts. He might say, "Why stop drinking? What does it matter?" What would you answer, from the viewpoint of the Realized? Then, how would you address the relative existence part of the I AM THAT; I AM summation of the teachings? Just contemplate that rather than sending a response.

Next, the site is not used to try to persuade persons to awaken and see the lies and see the truth. It is available to the few who seek and would find. It is not advertised and visitations are not solicited. The consciousness speaks and what happens after that happens...or not. Why? Because most will remain asleep since persons have to be shaken to be awakened, since most do not want to be shaken or awakened, and since the Realized witness and the consciousness speaks via this site only to those that ask...as just happened here.

Your question about why Realize, therefore, can only be answered in terms of relative impact. All duality, all sense of separation, and all the BS that happens on the planet is rooted in ego. And ego is rooted in the acceptance of ego-states as identities. And the antidote for egotism and distortion (including the belief that that ego-states are real and the egotistical belief that some are “better” or “good” or “right” or “moral” while “others” are “worse” or "bad” or “wrong” or “immoral”) is Realization. But even Realization is of this relative existence. Post-manifestation, all is Absolute, there is nothing manifested that can be aware of anything, and thus all of this being discussed is irrelevant. If abiding as the Absolute, it is understood that all is irrelevant and that any discussion is really for entertainment only. Please enter the silence of contemplation. [TOMORROW: Requested Clarifications]

“HOW CAN I HANDLE LOSS?” Final Review

[The following responses to a site visitor’s e-mail will serve as a final review of the subject]:

VISITOR: So any "One" and any "Who" that is present and 'who thinks they are doing something' or 'experiencing something' would be one or all of the "mind-body-personalities"?
F.: Yes. WHO's are always personas/personality, erroneously believed by the "mind" to be who one is, but such beliefs are always lies since the “mind” is just the aggregate of all the learned ignorance that makes person assume lies to be true as a result of programming and conditioning. If “wife” reports to “husband” that she is leaving and he feels like he's dying and needs to kill her because she won't stay, he hasn't a clue that it's the false identity of "husband" that is thinking—via the corrupted consciousness—that he is really "losing" something, that he is really under attack, and that he must take action. That's why the relative existence is so miserable for persons—they have no choice, they are being driven by illusions to behave as they behave, and they haven't a clue about why they are doing the things they do. Post-conditioning, Pavlov’s dogs didn’t have a clue that they had been programmed, didn’t know that salivating because of a sound rather than a scent was unnatural behavior, and didn't know that they were not choosing to do what they were doing but were blindly and automatically doing what they were doing because of conditioning rather than choice. So it is with persons.

VISITOR: There would have to be an "agenda of sorts" in effect?
F.: Ego-states always have an agenda, and the agenda includes the desire to last forever. Husband wants to be forever; the body wants to be forever; the religious person wants to last forever. The illusion is that the temporary can have continuity. Belief that such an impossibility is possible makes fools of the planet's population, and the foolishness of the nonsensical rituals they engage in to insure their continuity (and continuity with reward) are observable to any objective witness.

VISITOR: The 'spontaneous living in the NOW' or 'being' is a movement closer to reality?
F.: Yes and no. along the "path," proteges are invited to focus on the NOW in order to free them of the illusions of such concepts as "the past" and "the future" and "time." Ultimately, though, even the NOW is an illusion. To know that You Are the Absolute is to know that You have always been, so even the NOW ends up an illusion. The realized understand that there is no such thing as time. They understand the circular reality of cycles as opposed to the linear lie of "time."

VISITOR: I recall in From the I to the Absolute that even the "Who" that wants the realization, peace, or freedom of 'mind' to stay in place has to (or would) disappear.
F.: Of course. Upon Realization, ALL WHO's disappear, including '"that one." The Realized have no desires or wants, yet happenings still happen.

VISITOR: So there would be no "WHO" or any "One" present that would fear 'losing'.
F.: Exactly.

VISITOR: And what is there to "lose" or "seek" when I always have been and always will be mySELF—understanding that there is no-thing and nothing to add.
F.: Exactly, if the “I” you refer to is the conscious-energy, whether at rest or manifested. Can the energy at the wall plug in your kitchen have anything or lose anything? No. Can it manifest in a vacuum cleaner and cause the vacuum to seem to be doing something? Yes. If it is one of the latest models, can it be turned on and then allowed to move about a room "on its own" as a result of the energy and the internal programming? Yes. Is it really making its own choices as it moves about? No. Does it appear to be doing that? Yes. Will the vacuum deteriorate someday and return to the form of its basic elements? Yes. Can the energy be destroyed? No. Do you understand the comparison? Please enter the silence of contemplation.

“HOW CAN I HANDLE LOSS?” Part Five

F.: So, to review: Realization does not produce “robots.” The Realized, being the unicity and understanding the unicity, empathize with sufferers more than the non-Realized ever will. The realized do not, therefore, “lose the ability to feel” as some have claimed or feared. (By way of comparison, if two persons have the same physical injury, would the pain of that injury be felt more by the one who is awake or the one who is asleep…by one who is conscious or by one who is unconscious?) Next, any sense of “loss” is always preceded by the assumption of personas as identities and by the “desires, wants, or perceived needs” that assumption of ego-states always generates. Furthermore, for a “loss” to be taken as real, a persona must also believe in the concept of “ownership” and claim possession of both things and people.

Once persons have been programmed by their culture to imagine that they can own and to believe that perceived needs are real, the stage is set for persons to believe in the concept of “loss.” Thereafter, there are degrees to which persons “handle or don’t handle loss,” all dependent upon the degree to which they are asleep or Realized. First are those persons who are so unaware of the unicity that they are constantly angered by a sense of perceived loss and by their perception that they are not getting the respect they (their various ego-states) deserve. They are so self-absorbed that they have no ability to empathize with those who are suffering from truly miserable conditions, relatively speaking. Their ego-states (and the accompanying egotism) only allow them to see the false “I,” leaving them completely unaware of the misery of humans across the planet. Absorbed with self, or selves, they exaggerate the personal offense they experience while ignoring or minimizing the suffering and misery of other humans. Persons driven by such levels of corrupted consciousness are usually referred to as “hard-hearted” or “cold-blooded” or “egomanias.” The later term is appropriate to the degree that their “mania” is driven by “ego,” by their belief in the false “I,” by the perceived desires and wants of the false “I,” and by their distortions that lead them to assume ownership. They imagine constantly that they "have lost a great deal" but never consider that other humans have "lost" anything.

Secondly, there are persons who have no ability at all to “handle” what is considered a “loss.” For them, as for all personas, perceived loss becomes the blight of the human condition. The illusion called “memory”—which gives them a false sense that “they” have experienced some continuity of body and “mind”—drives the constant cycling and recycling of “thoughts” that are generated by the “thinking mind.” When that happens, then “memory” will prevent “loss” from ever being “handled.” (See

http://advaitavedantameditations.blogspot.com/2006/03/understanding-fraud-of-personal-needs_13.html

for more on the illusion of memory and its relation to the illusion of body continuity.)

Third, some who have moved along “the path” to the third level use their religious beliefs or spiritual beliefs to minimize perceived “losses.” That can seemingly “work” for some absorbed in such personas, but the fact is that the effects of trauma remain at a cellular level and a “sense of loss” will continue to impact their relative existence. To have an attachment, and a sense of loss around an attachment, is not “treated” by minimizing it, by ignoring it, or by requesting that it be magically removed. Full Realization can free persons of a sense of loss by seeing that one cannot “own” a mirage so one cannot “lose” a mirage.

Fourth, there are those who have moved along the “path” and have come to an understanding that what they thought they "lost" was not really that at all. Though not completely free of all sense of loss at all times, they are able to witness their feelings rise, able to avoid attachment to any illusion in that regard, and then able to witness their feelings fall. They know freedom with only occasional interruption.

Finally, there are the Fully Realized who abide as the Absolute and understand that there is no one to “have” so there is no one to “not have.” Loss is the stuff of duality and human experiences, not of the Absolute. That Which You Truly Are is beyond personas and perceptions and humanity and experience, including the experience of “owning” and therefore the experience of “losing.” Please enter the silence of contemplation. [Tomorrow: The Conclusion]

“HOW CAN I HANDLE LOSS?” Part Four

Received yesterday from a site visitor: “In this mornings entry on your site you said, ‘Even when certain ego-states had been generating levels of suffering that were beyond description, people mourn when their false (but familiar) roles can no longer be played.’ Youre wrong about suffering. Maybe Im playing the role of father and husband, but those are not making me suffer. I love everything about them.”

F.: So what you’re really admitting is that you love your self and you love your false roles. You’re also admitting that you love not being authentic and you love living an illusion. So be it.

Now, the discussion continues for those who would be free of self, of disingenuousness, and of belief in illusion. Whether the ego-state being assumed is “father,” “husband,” or any other, it is an illusion that will generate misery, if not now then at some point. Also, some persons who are absorbed in their false identities are already miserable but haven’t a clue. Depressed people often claim that they are not depressed because they have been depressed for so long that it has become their “norm.” Similarly, persons who are totally bored with their job will say “I love my job” since they have been bored for so long that their monotony "feels normal." Likewise, those who are trapped in their phony roles can claim that they’re happy and free while not being truly happy or truly free at all. It’s called “distortion” and “delusion” and it’s always about “self-deception”…about a false self that is using distortion to try to provide continuity for a phony image or for false images. Some never tire of the act; some do. For those who think they’re enjoying their play-acting, act on. Phoniness does exact an internal toll on persons with any consciousness at all, but for those who are totally asleep, no “effects” are noted. Conversely, for those who do tire someday of their phony performance, an avenue for change is offered.

That said, all ego-states are rooted in distortion, and one distortion is that ego-states and role-playing can be played without any relative effect (whether noted or not). That’s another lie. There’s always a relative cost, and the relative costs of assuming ego-states range from financial woes to serious illness to death, and that has been proved scientifically. Yes, role-playing kills. (Ask the detectives who investigate murders. They always look to “The Spouse” or “The Lover” as their first suspect because in the majority of cases, that is the one who killed as a result of being driven by the illusion that they were under attack when only an ego-state was disappearing.)

Research conducted by Dr. T.H. Holmes resulted in an exact method for measuring the effects of mental distortion, the effects of assuming ego-states, and the suffering that role-playing produces. Using his “Social Readjustment Rating Scale,” he assigned numeric values to different stressful situations and was able to show the correlation between assuming or forfeiting roles and the various levels of suffering that follow. His research proved that in each case where an ego-state was assumed or forfeited during a given time period, illnesses resulted that ranged from serious to life-threatening. Here are some of the point values assigned to various situations as a result of his research:

100 points if a spouse dies (resulting in the forfeiting of one or more of the survivor’s ego-states)
73 points if a divorce occurs (again, ending the playing of a role)
63 points if a marital separation happens (again ending the role of spouse)
63 points if one is sentenced to a jail term (thus assuming the role of “prisoner” and forfeiting other roles that could only be played if not in jail)
63 points if a family member dies (forfeiting another role in that instance)
50 points if marrying and

45 points if reconciling (thereby gaining or re-gaining certain false identities)

So the visitor who wrote the above wants to claim that roles don’t generate suffering, but scientific research proves otherwise. He might notice something about that role of “husband” which he claims that he loves to play: assuming the role of “spouse” has almost the same impact as going to prison! Note too that “getting back together” (re-assuming false roles that will have to be played once again) is almost as stressful as “getting separated” (and forfeiting roles that were being played).

The doctor’s research showed that if a person assumes or forfeits roles that total 250 points in a two-year period, the person is very likely to die. If persons assume or forfeit roles that total 150 points in that period, they are very likely to develop a serious illness. And to claim that “the effect of those changes only lasts for a short period” is to ignore other relevant statistics such as a 62% divorce rate in the U.S. and a 50% murder rate on average among persons whose relationships (and false identities) are ending.

So a pointer that has been offered before in several postings has been proved scientifically: (1) persons suffer when they assume ego-states, (2) they often don’t even have a clue that they’re suffering, and (3) when persons play roles, their game-playing often results in serious illness or death. Can all of that be dismissed as “relative existence stuff”? Of course, but as long as the I-Amness continues, why should one be "content" with it being marked by suffering and misery and illness and murder? WHO wants to set forth a defense for delusional living when its track record is beleaguered with those kinds of results, relativistic as the results may be? Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]

“HOW CAN I HANDLE LOSS?” Part Three

F.: The key pointer is that the concept of “loss” is based in the concept of “ownership.” The next pointer is, “WHO is there to own anything?” There is energy which is real and there are assumed personas (ego-states, false identities, images, etc.) that are not real. First, see that energy can own nothing, then see that an image can own nothing. Can a mirage in a desert own the sand or the desert or a stretch of highway or the mountains in the distance? Since "personas" and "ownership" and "loss" are merely concepts, and since all concepts are lies, WHO thinks he/she has lost something?

Because “loss” is a concept (and since concepts are illusions and since illusions are always upheld by other concepts) see the illusory concepts that support any false sense of “loss”: (1) wanting to be comfortable, (2) claiming ownership (3) desiring continued ownership, and (4) experiencing the fear of “losing comfort” or “losing ownership.” Persons, as a result of that which drives them most—fears, wants and desires—will try to cling to the co-dependent counterparts that each ego-state requires in order to sustain the illusion that some false identity is real. For example, “The Spouse” must hang onto a spouse to continue to “exist”; “The Homeowner” must hang onto a house to continue to “exist”; “The One Who Has Worked for His Possessions” must hang onto the contents of an apartment or home in order to continue to “exist.” “Loss” is perceived by persons to be so dreadful not because of what is being "lost"—such as a spouse or house or possessions—but because “self” (some false identity) is seemingly being lost along with each “thing” or co-dependent counterpart that was sustaining that ego-state. “Loss” is never about a person that someone lost or about "stuff" that someone lost. It is, instead, about the perception that it is one’s very self that is being lost. It is the sense of losing one's identity (though the identity was a lie) that drives whatever pain persons claim to feel around "loss."

Next, consider how “the desire for comfort” affects persons who feel they've lost something or someone. Perceived loss is exacerbated when one’s “comfort level” is interrupted. That which “seems” most comfortable to persons is that which is most familiar. When two social workers arrived to take an abused child away from the mother who had used cigarettes to burn the child from head to toe, the child fought with all her strength to prevent the workers from taking her out of her mother’s arms. As painful as it was to be with that mother, it was familiar, so the false sense of “comfort” that came with "familiarity" overrode even the sane drive for survival or for avoidance of those who inflict pain. Similarly with persons all across the globe, when certain roles they were playing come to an end, they hate not having that which was “familiar” and that which they thought was providing the comfort they wanted. Even when certain ego-states had been generating levels of suffering that were beyond description, people mourn when their false (but familiar) roles can no longer be played. Persons love the phony roles they play because they believe those roles define who they are; therefore, a repetition compulsion will typically drive them to find another person to play the co-dependent counterpart that is required to re-establish their illusory roles.

Next, the effects of a perceived loss are also exacerbated when one’s belief in the concept of “ownership” is challenged. Energy can own nothing, and the realized do not use possessives such as “my,” “mine,” etc. How could manifested energy own a house or have something called “my spouse”? Ownership is the stuff of ego-states. The indigenous peoples of the Americas had no word for “ownership.” The land was for all to use. It was the Europeans who brought to the Americans the Aryan notion of “owning.” If you own nothing, you can lose nothing, but you must know the difference in “the false you” and “the Real You” to reach that understanding. Please enter the silence of contemplation. [To be continued]