Webcast Transcript 18 September 2004

> George.

Wayne > How is it that you find yourself here today, George?

> I’ve read “Consciousness Speaks” and I’ve seen you a couple of times on the net. It seemed like a good time to come.

Wayne > Can you say what it is about this teaching that attracts you? Is it something in Consciousness Speaks or in the videos that’s appealing to you?

> It feels right.

Wayne > Is that an emotional or intellectual response?

> I’m not sure; probably both. It seems intellectually very satisfying. It’s not something I picked; it picked me. I’ve been studying this sort of thing for thirty-some years.

Wayne > What kind of work do you do?

> I’m retired now. I was a manager and consultant for a radio station.

Wayne > Have the reading or the videos you’ve seen left you with any unresolved questions regarding the teaching?

> No. I’m just waiting. That’s about it. I guess my head is in the tiger’s mouth, but there’s nothing more to do but wait and see. That’s kind of an odd feeling.

Wayne > Wait for what, George?

> The other shoe to drop. See, that’s the problem. I don’t know how other people feel. It’s like trying not to try. I understand intellectually. The bottom hasn’t dropped out, though. There’s a desire to have it all done with.

Wayne > Can you tell me what you mean when you say, “have it all done with”?

> To lose this . . . Well, who is losing? From what I can see of this teaching, Ramesh and Maharaj paint the possibility of a diminishing or ending of inner dialogue or chatter, and I’d like to get rid of that. I believe that there’s nothing I can do about it except sit and wait. I don’t want to anticipate what that is. It’s really a problem. I’m going in two different directions. So I figure it wouldn’t hurt to sit down and listen. I don’t know what you can say about it.

Wayne > I don’t know what I can say either!

> I’m aware of that. I don’t expect anybody to do anything.

Wayne > And yet much is being done continuously. You see that’s the flip side of that coin, and one often loses track of the fact that the process of life is ongoing. My being here and you being here, my talking and your speaking, your interest – all of those things are part of that vast “what is.” So while it’s true there’s nothing that you or I can egoically do, much continues.

That’s really the good news, because otherwise you’re left kind of depressed and dulled out, because the ego’s counterclaim that “there is nothing I can do” saps the life energy. It puts a grey blanket on everything. The teaching points out that much is to be done. As long as breath exists in the body, there still are many thoughts to be thought, many feelings to be felt, and many experiences to have. That is significant – I feel it is significant.

The teaching doesn’t normally make huge changes in one’s fundamental nature. If you’re fundamentally melancholic, then melancholia will undoubtedly continue to be part of that body/mind organism. But the effect of the teaching is often a reduction in the amount of fuel for the melancholia. The most dramatic example I’ve seen of that is a very famous fellow, Leonard Cohen. He came to the talk six or seven years ago. At the time, I didn’t know who he was. All I was aware of was that here was undoubtedly the darkest, most depressed person who ever attended the talks. He was a deeply melancholic person. His problem was that when he looked around there was incredible pain and suffering and sadness. He was highly sensitive, and he picked up on it and felt it deeply.

Over the intervening years, he became very involved in the teaching. Finally, four years ago he went to see Ramesh in India . By that time, the teaching had taken hold in him. He had a very powerful resonance with Ramesh, and the impact of over five years of being exposed to the teaching resulted in an observable change in his demeanor and his work; a lightness came about. That essential quality of the man remained, but the fuel for that depression and darkness was reduced, so life became lighter and the man became lighter.

What fueled so much of his suffering was the notion that what is observed as dark and painful and unpleasant shouldn’t be. That somehow it was a fundamental flaw in the universe that things were as they are. Implicit in that observation is that those conditions need to be corrected. Often the weight of that correction falls on the ego in the thought that “I” am somehow connected to this. There is a subtle claiming of authorship for it. It’s subtle, but it’s there. That involvement is what produces the suffering attendant to the pain of life.

So as the teaching takes hold, as the teaching reduces the strength of this claiming ego, there is often a reduction in suffering. The pain is still there. The misery in the world remains. There are still vast tracks of unhappiness and ugliness. However, the quality of “it should not be” is reduced, and so the suffering attendant to the pain is reduced.

> Would that also be true of other drives that one might have? I think that this thing in me has been driven by fear that I could not name. It’s been there since I was a child. There is some kind of existential horror – [unintelligible]. I think that seeking is like a condition, a bad itch. I don’t want to say it’s an illness. But it’s a chronic condition, like hemorrhoids. The things that you and Ramesh have said about how we didn’t choose to be a seeker really had an impact on me. “I didn’t pick this.” And I know other people aren’t even remotely interested in it – people I love and respect. A seeker can be a pain in the ass to his friends.

Wayne > That’s why we gather together in groups in like this where we’re safely out of the mainstream. That existential angst, that quality of unfettered, free-floating fear unconnected to anything specific is what I would characterize as the fear of the ego. It is a fear grounded in the fact that the ego knows its own powerlessness, knows that despite its claims of potency it can’t control the universe, can’t do anything. And, yet, it’s built up this incredible false claim of potency, of being able to do things.

> That’s it. And that’s depressing. You think you’re making progress, but then you realize there’s no such thing as progress. I’m not desperate or anything. When you talk about this, I realize that other people experience some version of this. I’m sixty-five years old. I thought when I was thirty I’d straighten this out in two or three years! I don’t mean to take up so much of the talk.

Wayne >You’re most welcome here George. You needn’t worry about occupying too much of the group’s time. Most of the people have been here a number of times before and have exhausted their own questions, their own hypnotic thoughts. It’s one of those things that replenishes, of course! Plus, what you’re articulating is known by virtually everyone in the room, and it’s relative to everyone. It isn’t just George’s problem or George’s situation.

[Pause]

Wayne > What is your name?

> Reinhold.

Wayne > Have we met before?

> Not yet. The first time I heard about this was from someone at a bar. I’ve been to all sorts of spiritual circles but I had never heard about it. Then a friend of mine, Charles, told me about it a few months later. Then another friend, Jim, told me about it, and I thought I had to check it out. So, I’m here.

Wayne > You say you’ve been through a lot of spiritual circles. What is it that you’re looking for in those various places?

> Entertainment, for one.

Wayne > The entertainment charge here is very stiff. If you’re here for entertainment, I’ll be glad to entertain you for 5 minutes for $50.

> Well, I was probably looking for some kind of deeper guidance, maybe, something more alive. There’s always been some sort of longing. I’m just curious. I like to explore different things. You can learn from everything. They’re all kind of true and all kind of false, in a way. My friend told me that you’re quite different than all the others.

Wayne > Well the one thing I value is sincerity. By sincerity I don’t mean seriousness, necessarily; one doesn’t have to be serious to be sincere. However, the teaching is quite sacred to me and I have tremendous reverence for the teaching. When that is perceived in someone, I’m gratified, and when it is not perceived, by nature I may find it irritating. So if you come with a sincere desire to explore and find what is here, then you are most welcome, and I won’t be in the slightest bit disturbed if you don’t find anything here. People come here at all different stages of readiness and different levels of interest. I have no investment in whether there’s a match between what is here and the person who comes.

> I don’t know much about this teaching and I can’t seem to get much out of my friend. He doesn’t really talk about it. Is it a teaching?

Wayne > It is a teaching.

> How do you practice? Is it something you can do?

Wayne > The teaching begins with the principle that nothing that I say is the truth.

> Truth meaning?

Wayne > Ultimate Truth.

> Because there is no truth?

Wayne > Because all conceptual truth is relative: somebody is going to agree; somebody is going to disagree. Anything that is said, anything that is taught, is dualistic in nature and can be disputed.

> Anything anybody says?

Wayne > Anything anybody says.

> Because of the limits of the language?

Wayne > Because of the limit of the mind. The mind is an instrument of duality. What is being pointed at is not dualistic.

> Well, can experience be the truth?

Wayne > Experience is also dualistic in nature.

> So, we can never experience the Absolute, or maybe parts of it only?

Wayne > Everything that is experienced is an aspect of the truth. In this teaching, we give truth the name Consciousness - Consciousness, Truth, God, Source, Oneness, Unicity. It doesn’t matter what you call it; it’s all the same word, same pointer to that source of which everything is an aspect. So, the truth can be known in its aspect but not in its totality. We are functioning in duality, so we say within relative duality there are statements that we call either true or false. It must always be remembered that those are relative evaluations, not absolutes. The only true absolute cannot be known, cannot be experienced, except in its aspect.

Now you’ve undoubtedly had experiences of unity, of oneness or presence in your life and seeking. We call that type of experience spiritual. It has a quality of being total, of being unfettered, unlimited. And, yet, if you can know it, if you can experience it, it must be limited. Ramesh calls those experiences “free samples” or “a glimpse over the fence,” but they’re not “it.” They’re a taste, a whiff. They are a pointer. But they are not it. To my mind, that’s what sets this teaching firmly apart from so many teachings. It is saying that the experience of unity is a relative experience; even the profound union with God that one knows is relative and not the truth, despite how profound it feels. It is an aspect of the Total, like everything else.

> What are we going for? Non-judgement?

Wayne > We’re not “going” for anything. The point of this teaching is that there’s no one to go anywhere and nowhere to go.

> So, what do you go by - what’s the most fun? How do you set your goals? You wake up every morning and do whatever feels right?

Wayne > Don’t you do that already?

> That’s my trouble.

Wayne > Sometimes you’re in trouble; sometimes your life works. Meaning sometimes you have positive outcomes from what you do, sometimes you have negative outcomes. Sometimes you have fantastic experiences and life feels rich and full. Sometimes you’re in trouble. Sometimes people are mad at you. Sometimes people make demands on you that you can’t fulfill. That’s life.

The point is that when you get up in the morning, this organism named Reinhold has certain inherent qualities. Reinhold has a genetic predisposition combined with subsequent conditioning: your enculturation, where you were born, how you were educated, what your family life was like. All of those experiences that have happened since you were born contribute to Reinhold as he is right now.

> But ultimately, it’s the mind?

Wayne > Ultimately . . . what is the mind?

> But I’m thinking that basically what you believe is what is happening, what is real. There are people who can make drastic changes based on what they believe. For example, Stephen Hawkins - Power versus Force (not the guy in the wheelchair).

Wayne > I’m not concerned with other people’s teachings and what this or that guy says. What we’re coming back to, and what I want to stay with, is your experience. We return our focus to what you know. Why should you believe him or why should you believe me? If we’re saying different things, how the hell do you make the determination?

> Whatever works for me.

Wayne > Okay. So let’s return to what works for you. If we can keep the focus there then perhaps some insight can arise. When we’re speculating on the teachings of others and how they differ, we’re in an endless bog of opinion, theory and discussion. Let’s bring it back to your experience. You ask, “I wake up in the morning and what do I do?” That’s where we started.

What I’m pointing you to is that you wake up in the morning and you do things, you perceive things, you experience things. How does Reinhold do what Reinhold does?

> That’s a good question. That’s what I’m wondering. Do we have freedom or am I just like this preprogrammed missile that goes through life? Basically I hit all the targets – they’re already somewhere in some kind of higher blueprint already or they’re not. Maybe all those points are already laid out. I may have the illusion there is freewill, but there is no freewill. That’s my question.

Wayne > Why would you believe me? Whether I say you do or do not have freewill, why believe me?

> I don’t know.

Wayne > Then you go to the next guy somebody tells you to see and he tells you the opposite. Why believe either of us? How do you tell which one to believe? Is it the one who dresses more spiritually, who has a better beard, or who has a deeper, more penetrating gaze? How do you decide? That’s why I’m saying don’t believe me and don’t believe him. Come back and look for yourself.

You ask if you have freewill. Let’s look at the nature of your actions. You say, “I decided to do something. I decided to get out of bed and so I got out of bed.” That’s very fundamental. “The reason I got out of bed was I decided to get out of bed.” How is it that today you decided to get out of bed and have a productive day and another day you decided to get up but fell back to sleep? I’m sure you’ve had those days too.

> Yes.

Wayne > So, how is it that these two very different results occur from the same decision?

> Is it the condition of the time of how I feel about myself?

Wayne > Okay. You say that it’s because you feel differently about yourself from one day to the other. But the way you feel about yourself isn’t something that you decide.

> No?

Wayne > Is it?

> Well, it would be nice.

Wayne > But is it something you decide? If it’s something you decide, presumably you would decide to feel good about yourself every single day.

> Right. That’s not happening.

Wayne > That’s not happening for most of us. So, how is it that on some days you feel good about yourself and other days you don’t? Presumably, there are forces outside of your control that bring about a feeling of “I feel good about myself” or “I don’t feel good about myself.” Your hormone balances are different; your blood sugar balances are different; the environmental conditions are different; the life circumstances are different day to day. All of those things that happen outside of your control bring about a feeling of “I feel good about myself” or “I don’t feel good about myself.”

> It seems to be happening like that. But isn’t it that maybe I just somehow expect something and then it doesn’t come?

Wayne > So you expect a certain feeling. How is it that one day you expect a certain feeling and on another day you don’t expect a certain feeling? Is that expectation within your control? The expectation arises on some days to have a certain feeling, on another day it doesn’t?

> Yes, it seems to have been happening like that.

Wayne > Okay. So if it’s not in your control, how is it your action? If it’s affected by something outside your control, then apparently it is dictated by that.

> It’s just a ping-pong ball thrown around in this machine by definite influences. That’s what you’re saying?

Wayne > I’m not saying anything. I’m asking you to determine, to tell me from your experience.

> I feel a lot of times that it’s a biological thing happening in the body or forces happening from outside the body.

Wayne > If that’s the case, then who or what is claiming responsibility for that?

> Responsibility for what’s happening to me?

Wayne > You’re saying, “I’m choosing.” If you make a bad choice, you feel guilt. If you make a good choice, you feel pride.

> I cannot blame myself for the outside influences. Or I shouldn’t.

Wayne > The question is how is it that you blame yourself for outside influences? Do you blame yourself for hurricane Ivan taking out half of Florida ?

> Probably not.

Wayne > So we keep coming back to this basic question: what is Reinhold’s part in all of these responses and all of these actions?

> My guess is that I don’t have an influence on that, I just have an influence on how I take it.

Wayne > So, if you have an influence on how you take it, then you can determine how you take it?

> That seems to be the only choice I have.

Wayne > Then why do you take it badly?

> Good question.

Wayne > You’re telling me that you have the choice to make that determination. I’m asking you if you do.

> It doesn’t seem like it, because it seems like you react in a certain way. It just seems to be things come up or you’re made a certain way because of all those things.

Wayne > What you just said is that you behave mechanically, but you have the choice whether you become involved in this or react to it. I’m asking you if you have that choice.

> I think to a certain degree it feels like I have that choice, it’s just hard to execute sometimes.

Wayne > If you have a choice but you can’t exercise it, do you really have the choice?

> Well, I guess not. [Laughter] Well, maybe “choice” is the wrong word. Maybe it’s a possibility that’s not quite developed. How’s that?

Wayne > You like it; that’s fine with me. What does it mean?

> It means that maybe if you practice a certain thing it might become a choice.

Wayne > And if my aunt grows balls she’s going to be my uncle. So we’ll have to see what happens. We can only deal with what we’ve got, with “what is.”

> So, we don’t have any choice?

Wayne > I’m not saying whether or not you have a choice. I’m saying that, clearly, choices get made. We’re looking at the source for the choice. Is it local or universal? Is this body/mind apparatus an instrument or an aspect of the total? Or is it its own source? Does it source its actions? Does it source its reactions? Those questions are raised here. And only you can answer them for yourself. There is no doctrine. I’m not telling you what you should believe or what should happen.

You can ask the question or not. You can only see if this inquiry presents any kind of curiosity for you at all as to the real nature of what is happening. Perhaps if some curiosity is stimulated, there will be a deeper look into what is the very essence of who you are and what you do.

> At times, I feel like I’m wasting my life. I feel guilty. Do you know what I’m saying? I feel like I’m supposed to do more – something more profound.

Wayne > What do you do in life?

> I work for a company that makes designs and electronic equipment that is sold all over the world. It’s quite successful. I’ve started with a raw food restaurant kind of business, so I’m probably getting out of that.

Wayne > You have resources, so why don’t you do something else?

> There are so many things. I can’t seem to find one that gives me an income that I’m comfortable with and also holds my interest. Business used to be my passion, but it’s not my passion any more. Now it’s a good business and provides me with resources. I’m trying to do something.

Wayne > We’ll see what happens. Why haven’t you done it?

> It’s not like I feel I haven’t done anything.

Wayne > Why haven’t you done all that you could?

> Because probably I was side-tracked by things that were more short-term, fun situations; they seemed fun at the time but they don’t really give you that deep fulfillment.

Wayne > So, again, we come back to the question of why you’ve done these other things. What is it that has made Reinhold pursue these shallow pleasures rather than something else?

> It’s instant gratification.

Wayne > I know what shallow pleasures are. [Laughter.] I’m no stranger to that; I’m a big fan of them. But I’m not cursed with the sense that I should be doing something else when I’m having my shallow pleasures.

> I don’t feel like that at the time.

Wayne > It’s subsequently, unfortunately. So what we need to look at is what produces this sense “I should have done otherwise.”

> I don’t know. Maybe it’s something implanted in the operating system, like coming from Germany where you’re taught that you always have to work hard – or God knows what.

Wayne > So, if it is your upbringing, your enculturation, you didn’t ask for your upbringing or to be born in Germany and raised the way you were. We call that programming. If your programming has produced this reaction, where does Reinhold come in to it?

> I don’t know. Maybe I can undo it.

Wayne > It might be productive for you to examine that question.

> I ask myself. Maybe it’s totally worthless because maybe everything is alright; I’m just having a problem accepting it. I don’t know. There are two ways to go and I don’t know which one. Maybe I just have to get rid of that belief that I have to do something more profound . . . or maybe I do have to do something profound.

Wayne > We’ll see what you do. We have no idea what you’re going to do in the future; we can only fantasize about that. However, we can look at the nature of what you’ve done because theoretically it has some substance to it. You say, “I feel guilty because I did what I did.”

> Sometimes.

Wayne > So you felt guilty in that particular moment when you did what you did. I’m pointing you to examine the source of that guilt. You say it comes from your enculturation, your background - from your programming. If that is the case, and it’s very likely the case, then how is Reinhold concerned with that?

> Are you saying that I’m blaming myself for something . . . ?

Wayne > How is Reinhold involved in this programming? Where is the connection between Reinhold and the programming?

> What is the connection? Because it seems to be in me or controlling me in a way, affecting me.

Wayne > Let’s look at this “me” that’s being controlled by this programming. If the “me” isn’t the programming, then what is the nature of that “me” that you say is being controlled by the programming? I can’t do the work for you, Reinhold. You’ve got to look for yourself.

> I’ve been looking for years. I don’t know.

Wayne > I’m pointing you to a rich vein.

> I can see that. But it’s not completely new vein. I’ve tried to approach that.

Wayne > It’s always a new vein. Each time you approach it it’s a new vein, unless you’ve mined it out. It’s still there.

[Pause]

> Is your new book, Never Mind, a transcript of your talks?

Wayne > No, there are a few transcripts scattered about it, but they’re a series of short essays.

> What’s a good book for me to read, you think?

Wayne > I would recommend Consciousness Speaks and Never Mind.

[Pause]

> Maharaj talks about earnestness and I’m not sure. I recognize that what he says is descriptive. “I” can’t become earnest. Where does the earnestness come from?

Wayne > The earnestness comes from the same source as any other reaction or action.

> What is earnestness?

Wayne > Earnestness is a word that was quite extensively used in the book I Am That. I don’t know what the word is in Marathi, but it’s a fairly good translation. So, the conundrum that George is referring to is that here is a sage who says that everything is Consciousness and Consciousness is doing everything, yet in the next breath, he says that one has to be earnest; that earnestness is required for the realization to happen.

Your conundrum here is the same one that Ramesh reported. He said he went to Maharaj and sat with him and Maharaj said over and over and over again, “Consciousness does everything. You do nothing. You are an instrument through which Consciousness functions. All there is is Consciousness. That is what you are. So anything that is done is Consciousness doing it.” In the next breath, Maharaj said, “And you must be earnest in order to realize the self.” Ramesh said he went home and tore out his hair in frustration trying to reconcile these two statements. This wasn’t an aberration either; Maharaj did this all the time.

So Ramesh said that the way he reconciled this for himself was with the understanding that you just alluded to, that what Maharaj was saying was descriptive not prescriptive. What the ego heard is “I” (as the ego) must be earnest. In Maharaj’s lexicon, the ego has no power to be earnest; the ego is a figment, it doesn’t exist as an authoring source. Therefore, he’s saying this is what must happen. This is part of the way things are. Earnestness is necessary.

I use the term sincerity, and this is what I was talking about earlier. As far as I am concerned, it has to be there in order for there to be any kind of movement or connection. I’m gratified when I see it, and I become disinterested or irritated when it’s absent in this context. There’s no blame, there’s no saying that the reason this earnestness or sincerity isn’t there is because you’re not manufacturing it. It may be heard that way, but that’s not what I’m saying. Not at all. It’s simply my reaction to what is, to what happened.