Webcast Transcript 19 June 2004

> What is your role in life?

Wayne> I don’t know. What is your role in life? What is your name?

> Tapoosh.

Wayne> So what is it that you do for a living?

> I am a physician.

Wayne> Okay. That’s one role that Tapoosh plays in life. Are you a father?

> I’m a father and a husband.

Wayne> Those are all roles you play in life. So, this organism has been created with certain characteristics, certain properties, certain qualities, and then those properties have been acted upon by the environment; it has been further conditioned by the environment. That conditioning is happening all the time. So, that organism has roles. But I don’t think that was the crux of your question.

> It wasn’t. I know all that. I meant beyond that. I read some of the stuff on Advaita. In many times in normal situations you think you’re in control, but then there are situations just slightly out of the ordinary when you realize it was not you, really; there were extraneous elements and forces, in terms of people, places, and situations that have contributed to the situation. The deacon says that you do your duty and carry your best, and all that. That’s where my problem is: how far do you try your best? When you get into trying your best, you trick yourself or your ego, maybe? So that’s my whole thing: when do I just give it up and say, forget it, I’m just going to take it easy? “Take it easy” means not do anything, but without any, how should I say, any action to it that I have to do this.

Wayne> You focus right on the crux of the question. This teaching points you to inquire at that crux. Obviously, we are not talking about stopping doing things. If you want to stop doing things, you have access to enough drugs where you can stop yourself from doing things just like that: give yourself an injection and you’re fine. So, if we really want to stop doing things, that’s easy.

The essence of your question is how to live without involvement that produces suffering. So we have to look at the nature of what it is that becomes involved. The scriptures may or may not be helpful in that regard, because over the years they’ve really become more of a social guidepost rather than a true mechanism for inquiry. There are exceptions.

The live teaching is to bring you to that point of inquiry and, perhaps, to a point of what the sage, Wei Wu Wei, called “apperception.” Apperception is knowing without a knower. It is not the intellectual subject/object knowledge we are accustomed to. It is a total knowing, a total being. That apperception comes. It is not something that you obtain.

So, what’s happening here is that there is a constant pointing back to ‘what is’ – the essential nature of ‘what is’ – pointing you to inquire into the essence of what you are. What is the nature of that which either gets involved or does not get involved? Does it have any substance? Those are the questions it raises. What is so unique about this teaching is that it doesn’t provide the answesr. It doesn’t have a doctrine: this is the truth; this is how it is - a, b, c; learn it, absorb it, and you’ll be fine. It doesn’t say that at all. It says you must understand for yourself. The teaching is simply a series of pointers.

> The whole struggle is when do you stop trying, or when do you keep trying, or when . . . ?

Wayne> If you look for yourself, you’ll see at some point the involvement stops. And it is the involvement that is the sense of trying. Things happen continuously through this organism. If you watch it and observe it, you’ll see that regardless of your intentions, things happen. I’m sure your intention is to be kind, generous, loving and open – all the time. I’m sure you’re a very nice man. My suspicion is that if you are God, you are kind, generous, loving, open all the time, despite your intentions.

So, we see that despite our best intentions, other things happen. That’s a very potent observation. How does that work? How does that happen? If I am, in fact, the one in control, then, presumably, I would be nice all the time, I would be caring all the time because, if for no other reason, people are nicer back to me when I’m nice. When I’m open, the world flows in. When I’m closed, and tight and restricted, life is not as pleasant, life is not as joyful. Therefore, if you had the power, you would be open, kind, loving and generous all the time. But you’re not.

Why? That’s what we’re asking. Why is it that that occurs?

> That is my karmic path or . . .

Wayne> You now introduce a whole new concept: the idea of a karmic influence. Some influence from outside of this organism determines what you do. It is not this organism that determines what happens; it is the influences from previous lives.

> Or even this life.

Wayne> Okay. Now if you look at the nature of karma and ask what we’re talking about, we’re talking about the notion of cause and effect. The karmic interaction or process is you do something and it has a result. You do a good thing, you get a good result; you do a bad thing, you get a bad result. That’s my understanding of karma.

When we really start looking at karma, though, it’s an infinite regression. You say, okay, I acted this way and I got this result. However, what determines the action that produced the result? You say there was a karmic influence on that action. Okay, so you take that action that produced the karmic influence and you have a regression - to where? Where does the karma start? How does that relate to you? Those are the questions we’re raising. When you get to the root of that, all kinds of things open.

> Can you take us to the root of that?

Wayne> Can I do the work for you?

> I just messed up my life really horribly with spiritual pride.

Wayne> Why on earth did you do that?

> I don’t know. I hear myself saying those things, but I can’t get rid of the voices.

Wayne> The question is, did you, in fact, ruin your life with spiritual conceit through your egoic doing? Were you the source of that action?

> If there’s nothing else but Consciousness, I can’t believe that Consciousness could be this cruel.

Wayne> If there’s nothing other than Consciousness, then where else is it coming from?

> My evil twin.

Wayne> But what you’re saying is that there is nothing other than Consciousness. If you accept that, then even your evil twin is Consciousness. You see?

> I ‘m trying to see that, but it’s just not clear.

Wayne> Well, that’s why we’re all sitting here. If it were clear, there would be no reason to be here. We would all just go on with our lives knitting or watching television.

> Or arranging flowers.

Wayne> Or arranging flowers or whatever! So that fact that it is not clear means there is some energy for such gatherings to be.

> If I had come to see you two months ago, I would have told you how wonderful everything was.

Wayne> You may come and see me two months from now and tell me it’s wonderful.

> Grace is kind to those who love. And while I was . . .

Wayne> Wait a minute! Grace is a gift! Grace is not a reward for loving!

> No. I don’t know how to put that exactly. I felt so confident in thinking that what you love comes to you. Is it that way?

Wayne> What you love, you can let go of.

> [Unintelligible]

Wayne> No, it’s not. However, the attachment can go.

> What is the difference between letting the attachment go and giving up?

Wayne> I didn’t say letting it go. I said it can go – as part of the functioning of Totality - not as your egoic action. That’s the point of the teaching. Anything can happen. Look around. What an extraordinary manifest universe. Anything can happen.

> Well, that gives me hope.

Wayne> Where there is despair, there’s hope.

> Well, you’re right. I’m going to say hello to that emotion that I thought was so unworthy – that hope is all new.

Wayne> See, despair is the other side of that coin. If the despair is there, then the seed of hope is within.

> Only because I only half hoped that I would take this leap.

Wayne> When the leap is made, the hope and the despair go with it.

[Pause]

> That concepts affect our way of thinking is a concept. Karma is a concept. How can any of that help me reach the Source? All concepts are useless.

Wayne> Concepts are useless in terms of you employing them to reach the Source, because you are not the one who is doing it. That is the pointer of the teaching. The concepts, themselves, are the fundamental building blocks of the manifest universe. Concepts, what the MIT guys at the far edges of physics are saying is, essentially, what the mystics have been saying all along: the Universe – the manifest world – IS conceptual. It has no independent existence. It is determined by what is measuring.

These teaching concepts are very specific. They are employed here in a way that Ramana Maharshi described as “using a thorn to remove another thorn.” So, if you have a conceptual thorn embedded in your foot, for example, and it’s causing a problem, then another conceptual thorn is used to remove it. Now, the important thing to remember is that after the embedded thorn is removed, both thorns are thrown away.

> What’s been puzzling is if everything is attributable to Source, we aren’t doing anything. Why – what is the purpose of all this? What is the Source trying to do? Is he – I don’t want to say he, but I don’t know what the source is – is he playing a game? What’s going on?

Wayne> Your basic question does give very human properties to the Source. This is completely natural. You are asking about intentionality. You’re talking about goal orientation: what is the Source trying to accomplish? It’s a very adult, human approach to things. The fish in the pond are not trying to accomplish anything. They are not trying to get somewhere or do something. The same for the birds flying in the trees.

My guru, Ramesh Balsekar, uses a wonderful example: You take children to the beach and set them down by the seashore with a bucket and shovels. What do they do? They build a sandcastle. They spend a lot of time doing this. Then, when you say, “Okay, kids. It’s time to go,” what do they do? They kick it, they jump on it, and they mush it all over. If you ask them, “Why did you do that? Why did you take all that time building this beautiful thing, and then in a matter of moments you destroy it?” they’ll look at you as though you’re crazy, because you are attempting to impose an adult perspective on the play of the children. They’re not trying to do anything. Now, if they are a little older and you badger them enough, they’ll say something to get you off their back, like “Oh, we were just having fun.” They’ve learned that will make you go away. Basically, they were simply doing it.

The question itself is an attempt to project an adult human perspective on the functioning of the entire manifest universe. We can do it, of course, and it’s been done by all the major religions – a lot of the minor ones, too – explaining the whys and wherefores of the operation of God. So it isn’t that there is an absence of explanation. If you want an explanation as to why things are, you’re in luck, because there are information booths set up all over the city. Many of them are manned twenty-four hours a day. They’re readily marked as well: they have crosses on them, stars of David, and the like. You can go in there, any time, day or night, and ask, “Why does God do it this way? Why do things appear as they appear? What is the point? What is the reason? What is the rationale?” They’ll say, “My son, you’ve come to the right place. We have the answer here on page 63 of this book. It’s not just any book; this is the book God gave us. It’s a good thing you didn’t go over to the information booth across the street, because they have the wrong answer.” It’s not that there is a shortage of answers - there are infinite answers. You can pick one that you like. I will not supply another one.

What this teaching is about is to point back to the very essence of this Source, and to understand that Source we are pointing to is not an object - even a large omnipotent one. It is in fact the source and the substance of everything. It is not, itself, an object. Our language, even the structure of our minds, forces the construction of a subject/object relationship, forces the notion of the source as an “it.” So, the apperception that I spoke about earlier is an expansion of understanding that embodies the Totality. So, it is not a subject/object kind of knowing; rather, it is a being.

> So we are supposed to sit back and accept it, marvel at it?

Wayne> Not “supposed do.” In accordance with your nature, you may sit back and accept and marvel. You will do what you do - accept this is the function of the source, whatever it is - good, bad. You will react as you do. And the acceptance of that is peace. It may come.

> I would even accept it. My question was more of curiosity: whether you stop at acceptance and let it go, or truly, there is something out there in answer to that question. You just accept it and move on.

Wayne> My point is that is not the answer. What we’re pointing to is what is it that would accept and move on? What is that that feels “Okay, I’m accepting and I’m moving on”? What is the nature of that? And in the understanding of the very fundamental nature of that, there is, perhaps, a kind of apperception, an understanding that is transcendent of subject/object kinds of knowing.

> For some reason since I’ve met you, I’ve had a real curiosity as to the inner workings of your life, and whether you do this or do that. When you were saying a minute ago that when the final understanding comes the hope and despair go with it . . . I guess, essentially all my trying to figure out what the heck does that actually mean - I’m never going to know. I’m never going to say, “Oh, yeah, that’s good.” What I meant is I can’t really know it unless I experience it.

Wayne> Yes. You experience the absence of hope and despair all the time. Throughout the course of your day, there are periods in which hope and despair are absent. So you do know the absence. That absence is just continuous and constant for the organism we call the sage.

[Pause]

> I have come to a point where I see everything as a concept and disregard it as such. Previously I had hoped that somebody would provide me an answer to my questions about existence. Now I know that there are no real answers. The questions are also useless. I just hate all the suffering that comes with life, and I want help. What do you recommend I do?

Wayne> You need to understand that your seeing everything as a concept and disregarding it as such is conceptual in nature. There is no place you can stand to remove yourself from this conceptual existence. Suffering may well be part of that. And if there is suffering, I’m very sorry that this suffering is present. But you know from your experience that the suffering is not continuous; it comes and it goes. And that is, in fact, life as it is generally understood to be. There is joy and sorrow, happiness and sadness, health and sickness, and there may be suffering. But it passes. It always passes.

> The state of suffering, isn’t this a very good place to be, to be really focused? Isn’t it possible to go into the suffering so deeply that you fall in and learn to fly?

Wayne> Of course. That can happen.

> You made a statement that was very helpful to me when you were talking about “waiting without waiting.” You said that’s not something to do; that’s a description of a state. That’s how I feel about meditation, and it’s turned my meditation upside down for me. I no longer think of meditation as something that I do; I think it as something of a state. I had a longtime Buddhist practice, and you referred to it as a Buddhist practice, and that’s how it’s commonly referred to. But when there is a reference to an Advaita practice, it’s almost like an oxymoron, because the whole point of the teaching is it’s not something you do. To me, it was a very important part of the understanding.

Wayne> It is a crucial part of the understanding, in fact, and it comes when it comes. My deepest certainty is that through your years of reading and inquiry, you encountered that notion prior to hearing it here – really hearing it. So, when the organism was ready, it heard it. When there was a point of entry, it entered and had its affect.

> So, there is nothing for one to do, really?

Wayne> There is much to be done. The question is who is doing it? There is much to be done - all day - every day. There is so much to be done. And organisms have been created, and are continuously being created, to do it. The question is what is the source for all that doing? That is what we’re looking at. What authors all the doing that happens through this organism?

> If you want to be good, you will do good things. End of story. If you are to be bad, you’ll do bad things. Right? Because that’s how it is. So why write all this stuff?

Wayne> It’s big business – big, big business – with an entrenched corporate structure for millenniums. So it perpetuates. And people are often comforted by having guidelines for behavior: this is the right way; this is the thing that you should do. Good. It’s part of what is. This teaching does not denigrate that. The teaching simply points past it and says, “Okay, look at what you do.” I do good things; I do bad things. What is the source of the good things AND the bad things? Is it this organism? Is it limited to this? Or is this organism an instrument through which a larger functioning is happening – both good functioning and bad functioning? That’s the question that is raised. And you must look and see for yourself.

> Do you believe in making amends? And how, if we are not the doers, would you make amends?

Wayne> There are practical considerations to living. The various social constructs, one of them being to make amends for your misdeeds, to correct those wrongs that you have made, are part of the fabric of ‘what is’. Those things happen. The impulse to do that arises in some organisms. You learn a program that suggests this, and through learning that program of making amends for your misdeeds and taking a personal inventory on an ongoing basis, those actions happen. And they are reinforced, often, because the results of making amends are positive for the organism that does it. When you clear out the crap, the channel is clean and clear. In practical terms, it’s very effective, of course. Whether someone can do it or not, or whether they even know that such a thing exists, is another matter entirely.

Some people may not even know that there is such a thing as making amends. How is that you learn about that? How is it that the thought comes “I must make amends for this action”? It’s a thought that arises. And then the energy arises to actually do it – once you say, “Okay, I harmed this person. It’s really necessary for me to try and make amends for that harm.” What is the source of that thought or the energy to act on that thought? The understanding is that the organism does conduct action - the organism does things. There are very natural types of results that occur as part of this manifest living.

> The other way of seeing that is since we are not the doers, and something else is the doer, whatever I do is actually not my action.

Wayne> Right. Including the event (of doing harm); that also was not your action. If the event happens, it is part of the same functioning that created the negative action in the first place.

[Pause]

> This is probably a question that I have to figure out for myself, but while I’m here I’ll give it a try. Aren’t all actions a result of your ego, or are some truly from the heart?

Wayne> I can give you a model of action that may be useful for you, in terms of your own experience. That model is that these organisms are a product of their genetic predisposition. In fact, geneticists are identifying genes all the time that directly relate to behavior. I was just reading in the paper the other day about a mole they have been studying for promiscuity. They changed this gene in the mole, and this rampantly promiscuous male all of a sudden is hanging around the nest after sex. Did you read that article?

At any rate, the point being this organism is a product of this genetic composition. Its actions are influenced by its genetics. They are also influenced by its experience. So, the cumulative effects of your culture, your education, your various life experiences, combine to modify the essential, inherent genetic predisposition. Those two things, the conditioning and genetics, combine to form what we will call the programming of the organism.

It is very useful for you to look at the nature of an action that happens and see how it connects to your programming, and see if it does connect to the programming of the organism. If you begin to see the programmed nature of the responses of the organism, then you’ll further understand that this programming is, in fact, dynamic – it is changing every minute. What you just heard has changed your programming. So, from this point forward your responses to things may be different based on this change in the programming that’s come about as a result of this new perception.

Start there, with the programmed nature of the apparatus that is responding; whether you consider it an ego or a heart response, or whatever. Look at the response, whatever it is that’s happening, and see if you can identify its programmed nature. Once you become comfortable with the sense of the programming, then we can further investigate into the source of that. First, though, you have to get there.

> Well, couldn’t you refer to that programming and genetics as latent tendencies and samsara? When I think about the scriptures or when I read translations of those, I feel that they actually came from a pure transmission of Source.

Wayne> Absolutely.

> Because that is what I hear in them: I hear that same teaching as what you’re saying, but in that language. So, you’re not saying that the scriptures are all false?

Wayne> No, no, no! Absolutely not. I’m saying the scriptures are a tool that can be used . . .

> Precisely to keep people in line . . .

Wayne> . . . in any way. Absolutely.

> Seeing unity or feeling unity or something unity, I used to find it to be abrasive and a lie. But now I can read the Bible and other books and hear and feel the Essence in those words.

Wayne> It certainly is there. All the world’s major spiritual traditions have sprung from the same non-dual seed. There’s no question. So at the root of all of them is this essential understanding. The stories and tales in the various scriptures are open to massive interpretation. When they are understood to be pointers, rather than literal truths, then we’re in much better shape.

> The body has been programmed, and due to whatever factors, we are here. We are privileged to have this discussion today. Is it safe to say that since it took X number of days to get to this point, probably there’s a purpose behind it? Is it safe to assume that we are hopefully “on the track,” and we will find the answers? Or are we supposed to actually . . . We are here, so I’m assuming that the programming has taken an effect. So, the point is that from here on, where do we go?

Wayne> I have seen every imaginable kind of result from exposure to this teaching, from the most sublime – what I would consider the most sublime, in terms of a relief from suffering – to utter neutrality and disinterest – to the most horrible kind of madness that resulted in at least one suicide that I’m aware of, and a second suicide attempt. The second fellow, this was the last I heard, is living in a trailer in upstate New York attempting to drink himself to death.

What the impact of this teaching will be for a particular case, I have no idea. The affects are quite variable, as is with medicine: you create a miracle drug and administer it to a patient, and there’s an amazing recovery - it’s a fantastic cure to what before was a hopeless condition - you administer it somebody else, and they have a reaction that kills them. So, you don’t know what the impact of something is going to be. You pay your money and you take your chances. You show up and you see what happens next in life.

> Ramesh Balsekar says that your head is in the tiger’s mouth; the fact that you are trying to seek means that there is an apparent “there.” Whether you stay there in the mouth or get swallowed all the way down . . .

Wayne> Exactly. And what you’re talking about is one’s experience in the tiger’s mouth; there’s no question that once your head is in the tiger’s mouth, the jaws are closed and there is no escape. That is the image. Whether that is a pleasurable, warm, comforting experience, or a completely horrifying one, or the incredible vast possibilities in between, we have no way of knowing.

> Wayne, I’ve read that the sage has no fear. Do you have any fear?

Wayne> The fear that is absent in the sage is the fear of what will become of me; the “me” being the ego. There is still practical fear on the part of the organism that we call the sage, such that if a mad dog jumps out from the side street you react with fear – adrenaline comes and there’s a fear reaction. But there is no projected psychological fear of what will become of me.

> You don’t have a fear of “what will become of me,” is that because you think that you know?

Wayne> No, because there’s no “me” to have the fear. The “me” that projects that fear is not present. That’s why.

> How do you deal with a physical pain?

Wayne> I make every effort to make it go away.

> Still, how does one deal with it? I see people with physical pain, and it does impact on me.

Wayne> But you can also see how different people react to pain. Some, when they get a hangnail, want morphine. Somebody else has a bone sticking out of their calf, it’s completely fractured, and they are saying, “Ouch! That hurts.” Different organisms have different capacities for pain, in the same way that different organisms have different intellectual capacities, different physical capacities. They are made different.

> How do you prevent it from touching your soul? How do you not get involved?

Wayne> It is the involvement by the “me” in the pain which is the suffering – yes – be it psychological pain or physical pain. The involvement by this egoic me is the source of the suffering; there’s no question about it. The questions “How do I not get involved? How do I not suffer?” can only be solved by looking at the nature of that which suffers by the one who is asking the question. Who wants to know? Who is concerned with the matter? What is the nature of that which says, “I don’t want to get involved any more, because the involvement is suffering”?

In the inquiry into the nature of that is when – sometimes – apperception occurs. It’s not that you get the answer of how to then control the involvement; that’s not what happens. It is that this dissolution happens.