ADVAITA WORDS AND TERMS, Part Eight, The Conclusion

FROM A SITE VISITOR: If I understand aright, then isn't the entire physical universe an appearance in consciousness? I can be comfortable with that as to the sense of sight.. but what of other sensations, some of great intensity.. of hardness/touch heat/cold How can sensations be not of external matter but of just consciousness? Ron

F.: Hello, Ron. Thx for the question. See if these pointers might clarify:

For the period of manifestation, the elemental, plant-food body can be an experiencer, but You (the Consciousness) are not the experiencer. The Consciousness can witness all that happens and, since it is manifested, the sensing of the touch, the heat, the cold, the pain or the pleasure can happen.

Asleep, even though the body is not sensing that the heart is beating or that the lungs are expanding and contracting at the behest of the manifested Consciousness, the Consciousness is aware and “overseeing” that beating and expanding and contracting. But “you” (meaning the body that most take Ron to be) are not aware of any of that, though “You,” the Consciousness, are.

When asked, “What do you do when asleep?” my teacher explained, “I am aware of being asleep.” The “I” which You Are is not the body that is sleeping.

It is the Consciousness that witnesses the heat, cold, etc., but it is the temporary, elemental body that experiences the heat and cold. (And ultimately, Ron, though the two witnessing stages are steps along the “path” to Realization, it can be understood that you are not even the witness. Prior to manifestation, You were that potentiality which could, and so happened to, manifest. In fact, You have never had any experience, a pointer that is relevant to the final discussion in today’s post regarding the terms Greg asked about.)

Also, see if this clarifies: a trip from Houston to Amsterdam and back occurred. Traveling happened in an airplane, but I was not the plane via which the traveling happen. Similarly, You are traveling about temporarily via a transitory and ever-changing plant food body, but That Which You Are is not the body. Regards, f.

FROM A SITE VISITOR: You mention “Realization,” “awakening,” “liberation,” “Full Realization,” “Awareness,” “Enlightenment,” all sorts of terms that I thought meant the same. Do they or not? And what about self knowledge, self realization and self actualization? I’ve seen those too. Thank you. Greg

F.: Earlier, the pointer was offered to Ron that “You have never had any experience….” If you come to know (1) the sense of presence that the manifest consciousness is, (2) the potentiality that You Were prior to manifestation, and (3) the nothingness that preceded that (in “this universe”) then where is the awakening?

WHO is supposedly awakening? WHO is supposedly Realizing? WHO is supposedly being liberated? WHO is supposedly enlightened? WHO is supposedly actualized? When the “journey” ends with a state of zero concepts, WHO remains to do or be anything? I Am beyond beingness and non-beingness. So Are You.

The only difference between ME and anyone who believes he/she is “Realized” or “Awakened” or “Enlightened” is that I know My true nature. To know “Self” is merely to understand the Absolute. To know that which You Were before the first second that this universe manifested in a Void of Nothingness is to understand that which was prior to this universe.

That which I Am and that You Are, ultimately, is beyond all of that…beyond all that “changes” or is fleeting. It is that which is eternal and unchanging. It is not that which appears but that which precedes all appearance. (See the additional relevance of Ron’s question above to this discussion?)

All of the terms that were asked about are merely markers along the “path” on a “journey” which is not a journey at all. The “journey” is in quote marks because it is really just a process, and the terms being discussed in this series are merely thorns used to remove thorns, not some goal to be attained at the end of the process. Ultimately, these words revered by so many seekers do not even define a “state.” They are not words which describe “their current status,” a belief held by persons with only a part of the total understanding.

Another visitor asked about the phrase “SELF-Transformation” that appears in one of the titles of a book offered on a related site. Is there any such thing as “SELF-Transformation?” Of course not, but all teachers use words along the way that can be relevant to seekers at various levels.

That term is used with those who are at the wet charcoal stage and who are seeking something but haven’t a clue what that “something” is. Those so identified with the “false self” cannot even imagine, at the wet charcoal stage, what the True Self might be. Instead, they want to “change”—their habits, their lives, their conduct, their relations; thus, the term is used to allow them to begin the “journey” which they believe, in the early stages, is about changing themselves.

(It is made clear in that book that the ultimate goal is not to settle for physical sobriety but to attain as well mental, emotional, and spiritual sobriety via abandonment of “The Great Delusion” and via getting in touch with “The Great Reality” and the “True Self”.)

In the end, all of the terms discussed in this series are just concepts that can be used to remove concepts. After that happens, the terms are meaningless because the WHO dis-appears. The re-purification of the consciousness is a process, and the terms are used to discuss the various levels of the shift in the temporarily manifested consciousness from a corrupted circumstance to a re-purified circumstance. Please enter the silence of contemplation.

EGO-STATES: “LOVE” OR “EGO,” BUT NOT BOTH (A Continuing Series on Ego-States), Part Five

FROM A SITE VISITOR: So the whole problem really begins with ego, right? Sam (PS Thanks for the blog site.)

F.: Taking into account all of the Advaitin pointers that have ever been offered, none is likely to be as despised by persons (by the non-Realized) as the pointer that “there is no continuity of body or mind or personality.” Ranking a close second is likely the pointer that, “If you have not Realized, then you have never loved; if you are only dealing with the non-Realized, you are not being loved.”

Those who would debate that point are the ones who really desire love or who fear not having love or who believe they really need love or who are convinced that no one could not love them. They do not understand “mutually exclusive.” If reason and logic are applied, it should be clear that one involved in self—that is, a person assuming any false role and taking the false self to be the True Self, will automatically be self-involved and self-absorbed.

One who is self-involved and self-absorbed will see “a world of others,” and all interaction with those “others” will only be to sustain one’s co-dependent or interdependent ego-states…one’s false self or false selves. That “world” of ego-states and egomania will always be devoid of love. Demanding sex every day might be taken as a sign that "he really loves me" and "he really wants me" and "I am securing my roles." The objective Advaitin witness can see that the only thing happening is that the ego-state of “The Lover” is being sustained for the husband. The savvy clinician will see that a sex addiction is being enabled...and nothing more.

Persons tout the benefits of "self-esteem"; that notwithstanding, to be self-involved and self-absorbed and in love with one’s false self/selves excludes any chance for the manifestation of unconditional love. The “search for love” among the non-Realized really involves nothing more than a desire to find an opposite-sex clone of self. The belief is, "Surely we will be compatible forever if we have the same thoughts, the same beliefs, the same behaviors and habits, the same desires, the same fears, etc.," as if persons are not in a constant state of flux and as if they "will always be the way they are now."

The non-Realized, being unaware of the unicity in which True Love is based, will claim that they are “in love” while actually being in love with a mirror image. They are only in love with self, and more specifically, they are only in love with their false ego-states while believing that they truly love those who support their false roles. “The Employee” loves the boss who allows that role to continue (especially if the job is high-paying) and hates the boss who fires her/him and destroys that role. “The Wife” claims to love the man who was her accomplice in forming and sustaining her false images.

That which is real is unchanging, so if love can turn to hate, it was not real to begin with.

The case study for this series is a woman whose husband claimed for years that he loved her but now “does not love her anymore.” After the beginning months or years of most marriages, a point is reached when it is declared that “the honeymoon is over.” What does that mean? It means that all of the images that were being shown or assumed during dating are eventually seen to be nothing more than misrepresentations. It means that the personality defects that were being covered up are now coming to light.

For those who are really asleep or in denial, being fooled (or fooling oneself) can go on for years. The woman going through a divorce claims that “up until now, he always loved me and I always loved him.” Objective witnesses who read the details of her account would conclude that other factors were involved which convinced her that love is compatible with being controlled by a self-absorbed and neglectful man who took the money she earned, who made her handle all projects and then attacked her over the results, who refused to discuss having children, who demanded sex every day for twenty years, who had a multi-year affair, and who is now leaving her for another woman after she played the role of “The Dutiful and Obedient and Accommodating Wife” for twenty years.

Some might conclude that she was more likely to have been in love with the idea of love or with the idea of “the two of you” or with the idea of their being “a couple.” Some might conclude that she enjoyed being seen about town with what she described as “the best-looking man in town” who bought “the biggest mansion in the city” where they “entertained lavishly.” Some would study her words and conclude that she was in love with something other than “him.” She knows the price they paid for their mansion to the penny, but she does not know the price she has paid by internalizing another person instead of finding her True Self.

Likely, for the first time in decades, she is in a position to finally be true to her Self rather than playing the role of “His Wife” (“his” meaning literally, “the wife possessed by him”). She is in a position to stop playing her false roles of “The Wife” and “The Opposite-Sex Clone of a Man” and “The Provider of Daily Sex.” She thinks he is leaving her, but the fact is that he was never "with" her. She thinks she is dying now, but she has been "dead" for years (meaning, dead to her True Self).

The relevant Advaita pointer has been offered earlier:

The belief by persons that their various roles actually define who they are becomes entrenched. Then, if personas feel that they are being hurt, challenged, interfered with, or threatened, most persons become willing to fight to preserve that which is nothing more than an image. Many have fought to the (relative) death to preserve the false personality that their “minds” have convinced them is who they actually are.

With her threats to kill herself, the woman is “entrenched” in the roles of “Wife,” “Socialite,” “Co-Owner of a Mansion,” “The Woman Enhanced by Being with a Handsome Man,” “The Woman Who Will Always Be Secure, Having Married the Rich Man,” ad infinitum. With those ego-states now being “threatened,” she is ready to fight to the death. In this case, the fight to the death involves her own relative death because she is convinced that if she cannot continue to play her false roles in “The Drama of the Lie,” that ending the manifestation of the consciousness is the only viable alternative available.

Consider how much suffering persons experience as 50-60% who marry will have to face the lost of their assumed identities and will have to deal with the emotional intoxication that happens when the loss of so many identities strikes at once.

If only all false identities were discarded on one’s own timetable instead of a timetable imposed by a co-dependent sustainer of one’s ego-states. If only the ego-states were discarded while visiting with a teacher/guide under calm and rational circumstances. Then, all of the trauma of having identities snatched away could be avoided by having given them up voluntarily. “The Fearful Employee” can disappear though the job can continue. “The Dutiful, Obedient, Accommodating Wife” could disappear though the marriage could continue (the indication for intensive counseling notwithstanding).

The difference is this: the Realized can still feel what they feel without becoming “robotic,” as some charge. Feelings are witnessed as they rise and fall, but the Realized are free of the assumption of false identities that drive persons to think that the loss of a culturally-assigned label is grounds for suicide. Realization, which allows for AS IF living, is a pre-emptive strike against that which will eventually strike all persons absorbed in ego-states. Please enter the silence of contemplation. (To be continued)
THE FULL TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT OF “RELATIONSHIP PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS” IS AVAILABLE

Click CASTING LIGHT ON THE DARK SIDE OF RELATIONSHIPS