Webcast Transcript 28 October 2004

> A friend told me about you.

Wayne> And what did he tell you that induced you to come down here?

> We’ve done some work together. We got into a long conversation on Buddhism. I’ve been part of a Buddhist group for thirty years. I’m a seeker. We were talking today about how it is possible that there is no “me.” How does source manifest what apparently is this “me,” and what happens when the apparent “me” goes away? I’m interested in that and understanding more about what appears to be real, but apparently isn’t.

Wayne> “There is no me” is a very interesting and provocative statement. What do you mean by that?

> I’m trying to understand the principles, as I am very new to this. I’m coming from what seems to be the truth that there is a “me” - that I do exist as an entity, And I’ve always existed, through life after life after life, through karma. I’m trying to open my mind up beyond this idea that I am eternity. So, what is eternity?

Wayne> That’s a very, very good question! What we’re really getting down to is the nature of this “I.” When you say, “I am eternal,” what do you mean? What is this “I” that is eternal?

> Based on my understanding of the truth, it’s through me and all the mes that have been and will be; that’s the only way it can somehow manifest itself. And I’m interested in and am open to this other way of looking at it, although it’s mind-blowing to imagine another way of looking at it.

Wayne> Actually, there are at least millions of ways of looking at it. Whether there’s a me or no me, reincarnation or no reincarnation, a self or no self, God or no God - those kinds of discussions have gone on endlessly and, judging from this afternoon, are continuing. That being the case, what are we doing here? What we’re doing here, hopefully, is pointing beyond those relative concepts. Those relative concepts are great; I have no problem with any of them. They are all potentially vital pointers to an eternal truth. And whether it’s a Buddhist or a Hindu pointer, a Jewish or Christian pointer, or a Muslim or Taoist pointer, makes no difference to me. I have no interest in resolving the philosophical divergences, other than to acknowledge that they exist. What I am interested in is looking beyond the philosophical viewpoints to that which underlies all of them – underlies everything, ultimately.

> What is that?

Wayne> It is everything and nothing.

> Does that mean it’s a duality?

Wayne> It certainly is an apparent duality.

> It seems to be.

Wayne> If there’s no duality, what the hell’s going on here? There certainly appears to be a duality, meaning subject/object relationship. There is a point of perception and something perceived - duality. We can take this dualistic evidence and move back from what is immediately observable, knowable and experiential. There is something; we know not what. And, so, this teaching is pointing back - back to that essence, back to that Source.

> Beyond the duality? Or defined by the duality?

Wayne> Out of which the duality arises. The dual is something. What is that something that manifests as duality? This is what the teaching is pointing to: that which encompasses all that is manifest. What is that which is manifest?

The name of this teaching is Advaita, which means literally “not two.” What we say is there is duality; there is two-ness. So what is this Advaita pointing to that is not two? It’s an interesting term – not two - as opposed to calling it oneness. Because when you call something oneness, it implies twoness; it only is meaningful in relation to twoness. By taking the negative approach and saying it’s not two – we’re not saying it’s one – the question that arises is, what is that not two-ness out of which the duality or two-ness arises?

We give it names: God, Source, Oneness, Consciousness, Mind. There are a million names for the unnamable. But it’s important to understand that when we name it, we objectify it. It becomes some thing. Really, what we are pointing at with those terms is not a thing, not even a really big thing – like everything. But the mind cannot conceive of an everything that isn’t a thing.

> Is this conceivable?

Wayne> No. Not in the relative sense. It is not knowable by the mind, by the intellect. It is not knowable by the sense object. Because in order to know something, one must be separate from it; in order to perceive something, one must be separate from it. And you are not separate from it.

> The “not two.” Well, that’s sinking in.

Wayne> That’s what this is about: waves that continuously crash.

> What do you make of this seeking to make sense, then?

Wayne> What do I make of it? It happens. It’s part of what is manifest.

> Is it essential, or is it just because that’s what is?

Wayne> Whether it’s essential is only from the standpoint of a result. What I’m saying is that it’s part of “what is.” Now, it’s becoming fashionable – it always comes in and out of fashion – to consider seeking to be an obstacle. “Oh if you’re a seeker, then you’re an idiot, because when you have an advanced understanding, you see that the seeking limits you from knowing what you truly are.” So if you’re seeking something, then the very seeking is the obstacle. If you continue to consider yourself a seeker, you’re an idiot. So you have a group of people who are seeking but who say they aren’t seeking anymore. It’s just redefined!

I don’t consider seeking to be either clean or dirty. I don’t think it’s this elevated state or that it’s the most divine thing that you can do - where if you’re seeking God then you’re clearly a superior being - as opposed to someone who is watching the World Series and other such mundane, pointless acts. I have no evaluation on either the positive or the negative side. Seeking happens. Some organisms are created to be interested in this; others you could not drag here. Most people, in fact, you couldn’t drag here.

> I can’t help it.

Wayne> And others can’t stay away. With the understanding that it is happening – it’s happening; it’s part of “what is.”

> Unfolding the way it’s supposed to be.

Wayne> Unfolding the way it IS.

> Okay.

Wayne> Unfolding the way it is.

> In the unfolding, is there any direction possible? Is there a personal capacity to make a choice here or there, or it’s just unfolding the way it is?

Wayne> Well, personal choices are part of the unfolding; they’re part of “what is.” People make personal choices, continuously: I’ll have vanilla; no, I’ll have the chocolate; I’ll have the escargot; I’ll have the lobster. As long as they don’t mention McDonalds! So, choices are being made continuously.

> Is it part of our intellect to sort of try to figure out what that means?

Wayne> Certainly. Certain intellects are interested in such questions. We generally call those organisms seekers after knowledge, seekers after truth. They want to know; they want to understand. This path of knowledge is one of the traditional Yogic paths. Certain types of human organisms are drawn to that kind of seeking. There are other kinds of seeking as well: devotional, more art-centered kind of seeking; more active, doing kinds of seeking. Different people are temperamentally suited for these different paths.

> Is there such a thing as evolution in this, or is that just an illusion?

Wayne> We could say that it’s as real as you are. So, if you’re real then evolution’s real.

> Does that mean if evolution is real, that progress is real; too? In other words, five thousand years ago, we were one sort of culture, society, creatures, and now there’s another society? Or is that just bullshit?

Wayne> I don’t know if there’s going to be anything tomorrow, much less five thousand years from now. It’s pretty much a crapshoot as far as I am concerned.

> I guess what I’m trying to get to is does it matter to one to yearn to evolve? To be – I don’t want to say better – but somehow . . .

Wayne> If you yearn to evolve, it matters. For the people who don’t yearn to evolve, it doesn’t matter. You can say to them, “It’s very important for you to yearn to evolve,” and they’re going to look at you like you’re crazy. “What do I have to evolve for? The game’s on!”

> So, either path is okay.

Wayne> It is. Okay or not okay is something that we put on top of it.

> Free to be what we are.

Wayne> We are what we are. It is what it is. What’s happening is what’s happening. You can call it freedom to be what we are or you can say we’re enslaved.

> Do you feel you’re gaining knowledge or is that not even how you approach it?

Wayne> On a good day, I figure I’m making progress. It’s not always readily apparent.

> Is that important to you?

Wayne> Not really. No. My life unfolds before me, and each moment is rich and very full. Sometimes it’s full of shit; sometimes it’s full of incredible beauty. But there is fullness; there is absolute presence in “what is.”

> And each moment to experience that fullness is what it’s about?

Wayne> It’s what is. And this organism is an effect.

> When this organism dies, what happens to the organism? Is it absorbed back into “what is”?

Wayne> When the organism dies, the surrounding organisms may hasten to get rid of it. It becomes a nuisance very quickly, because we don’t’ want those things around. Burn them or bury them or leave them out for the birds; do something with them. Get them out of the house. Once the body is disposed of, then everybody can get on with their grief and their life. The organism returns to its constituent elemental parts.

> So, there is no separation of spirit or energy or entity once the body dies?

Wayne> What kind of spirit . . .?

> Well, I mean from the lesser point of view that the soul leaves the body. But I don’t believe that. So my sense right now is that death is simply a transformation to some other state.

Wayne> Or what?

> I can’t explain it, other than that sort of resonates with me and sounds right. I’m interested in understanding if there’s another view on it.

Wayne> There are lots of them.

> I’m sure. What’s your view of it?

Wayne> I don’t have a view. There’s no philosophy here. There’s no dogma. There’s nothing to learn in the sense that this is how it is. I don’t know how it is. All I can point to is “what is.” And then it’s up to you as to whether there is insight, whether there is seeing, whether there is understanding. It happens through that organism. We point you back to look at the nature of what you are. Once it is understood what you are, then the concern with the body diminishes. If you are the body, and that’s it, then when the body dies, you die. If you are not the body, or if you are not limited to the body, then what are you?

We can pretty much agree that the body is going to die. The body will die; people will come and get rid of it; it will disintegrate and the elemental particles of the body will move into other organisms, become part of other life forms. So, is that what you are? That’s the question.

> The way you’ve described it, there is something wonderful about the idea - this ongoing regeneration through particles, feeding entities that become particles. That’s neat. But, I guess my hope or sense is that I don’t think that’s all there is. It doesn’t seem that should be all there is. That’s my sense of it.

[Pause]

> I’d like to try something with you, Wayne. We met about a year go. Maybe this is my second annual visit; I don’t know. We’ll see.

Wayne> We met in Denver?

> Right. I’m in town for work. There’s a concept that comes to mind sometimes. My background is largely Nisargadatta, Ramesh and you. Nisargadatta Maharaj teaches that you are that that was before you were aware of being around, and you are that now, regardless of this body. You will always be that. What is the “that” that’s pointing to?

Wayne> That’s what he doesn’t tell you! He says, “I am that,” but he doesn’t tell you what that is.

> If you’re giving your talk and you’re posing that question to somebody, they shouldn’t try to answer that question to prove that they understand, because their answer can never be right. They just have to walk out the door and say, “Yeah.”

Wayne> When Maharaj points to “that,” when Ramesh says that everything is Consciousness, the pointer is always to this essence. And you are right; the answer is not the objective. But the question itself has value.

> Now I remember what I was getting at. My point is that Ramesh teaches in Ultimate Understanding that there is no perceiver. There is not that trinity of perceiver/perceiving/object perceived; there is only perceiving. My eyes looking at you is not “I” looking at “you;” it’s just looking. Is there no object of perception and the perceiving of it? In other words, before this body was born and became aware of this earth – we’re on this globe and earth is super huge globe in “outer space” – was that globe there? Is that an object that exists independent of my perceiving it? Because 65 million years ago, I could not perceive the earth. What is that object?

Wayne> There is no object; that’s what he’s saying. There is no perceiver object and there is no perceived object – ultimately. This is what the pointer is. Those are simply aspects of a single source. They only appear as separate. So there is no “world” object that exists independent of Consciousness. Everything is Consciousness, and in order for there to be this dualistic appearance, there must be a point of Consciousness that perceives and a point of Consciousness that is perceived. But they are not separate.

> So that’s to say that when this body dies, then Consciousness can apparently not perceive the earth. Does that mean there is no earth?

Wayne> There is no earth if there is no perceiver, no point of perception.

> Right. When you die and you’re taken away, in your perception, there’s no earth any more?

Wayne> For that point of perception, there is nothing. There’s no longer perception.

> But somebody would have to say the earth is still here.

Wayne> If there’s still a point of perception then the earth would still be here.

> Is that independent of my perception of it?

Wayne> What are you? “’My’ perception of it.” What are you? That is what we get back to.

> When I walk down the street, I see feet stepping on the ground, the ground moving by, and I can feel the weight of my body taking steps. But all those things are aspects of Consciousness - Consciousness taking the form of steps, of apparent weight, of air going by. I can feel those, by virtue of the senses, but they are forms of Consciousness taking the form of the sense of weight, of feeling, of cold.

Wayne> That’s right. There are scientific studies that have been done on people who have lost a limb, for example. The researcher can take a probe and stimulate a point on the stump, and what the person will report is that they feel wetness on the finger when that point is touched. But there’s no finger and there’s no wetness, but there is the experience of the finger being wet. So, your experience is a product of your brain function. It is the mind that creates reality, creates experience. There is no independent reality.

You don’t have to take my word for it. The physicists have been looking very hard for independent reality. They’ve spent a lot of money and done all kinds of research; they have big buildings; they spend lots of time looking for stuff they can measure and say, “This exists.” But, damn it, the closer they get to the most elemental thing that exists, what they’ve discovered is that what is found is dependent on that which measures it. This is what the mystics have been saying since the beginning: what exists is dependent upon the nature of that which perceives.

> And that which perceives is one of those things, too; that has to be looked at in the same way. That is duality. I posed a similar question to you on the internet, asking that if we can say that everything is Consciousness, then how can we say an object, such as a chunk of metal or an automobile, is Consciousness? I guess the way we could say that is that it’s a chunk of metal relative to this body. But what are both of those? What is this body then? You keep pointing back.

Wayne> You don’t know that it exists. You go out into the desert and you can see palm trees and water, all kinds of stuff. You look at it, you see it, the same way you see the metal. But when you get there, it’s not there. It simply was something that you saw.

[Pause]

> You often talk about how the ecstatic experience of oneness is a great spiritual experience that is the hallmark of the seeker, and that its nature is to come and go. When the seeker has that type of experience, during that experience there’s no awareness of it; when it ends, the seeker looks back on that experience and says, “I was having that great experience of oneness; I want that back.” So, what’s incorrect about that is looking back on that saying, “I want that back,” when “that” is what’s here all the time. When you’re looking back on an experience, that which was then is here now as a memory or thought in the present.

The inverse often happens, too. A seeker can have a great experience that he remembers and says, “That’s exactly what the guru was talking about. That must have been it.” The person can go through a period of time where they are apparently caught up and apparently experiencing things the way they used to when they were ignorant, and they can look back on that experience and say, “Oh. I forgot to remain aware of Consciousness back then.” But you teach that that great experience of oneness is not the state of the sage all the time. So, that also means that experience in the past of not being connected and present is equally not the state of the sage. In other words, if the great state of oneness is not it, then . . .

Wayne> . . . separation is not it either.

> They’re just alternating states. So, “it” must be something that encompasses both.

Wayne> Encompasses or transcends; yes.

> So evaluating the experiences is what seeking is when we say that seeking is an obstacle.

Wayne> These things, they happen.

> We can say seeking is an obstacle, but seeking is wanting to create that great experience all the time. And then we can have a period when it’s not so great, and look back on that and wish we had made that great. Both are wrong to do.

Wayne> Both happen. It’s not a matter of being right or wrong. It happens.

> So, the state of the sage is one that accepts what happens.

Wayne> Ultimately, it accepts what is. There is still a reaction to what happens by the organism. You like what happens; you don’t like what happens. The acceptance is total. The acceptance we’re pointing at is of everything, not something specific. How are we doing?

> Excellent! [Laughter]

Wayne> Well, good!

[Pause]

> I have a question I’ve been fumbling around with. You talk about enlightenment as being the absence of something, and the experience of enlightenment you’ve compared to not having a rock in your shoe. Yet, somehow, it happened in your life. And you seem to be confident that that happened. How do you know something has “not” happened?

Wayne> The event happened. There was an event; there was a moment in the history of the organism when that happened. It happened. How do you know that something happened? It happened. How do you know that you’re a man? You don’t have to think about it; you don’t have to ponder the philosophical implications of it. It’s a fact of your life. Right?

> I don’t’ know. Maleness: yes.

Wayne> What I’m saying is that it’s of the same quality. It’s something that is, something absolutely evident - not subject to debate, discussion, questioning. It simply is.

> So, there’s a time at which there is some clarity about this.

Wayne> There’s no significance, you see. The significance is piled on afterwards.

> Certainly, I pile significance on to it.

Wayne> Right. But what I’m saying is that there is no inherent significance to it. The significance is only from the standpoint of the seeker. And the seeking is no longer there; therefore, from the “standpoint” of the sage, there’s no relevance; there’s no significance.

> Okay.

> You say it happened in the past and you can remember it. Is it an event you can pinpoint to the minute?

Wayne> Yes.

> Okay. Then along that line, sort of, Ramesh says enlightenment is always an immediate apperception, because it has to be now. When it happens, it happens now. If it happens five years from now, it’s still now. In “Ultimate Understanding”, he distinguishes between enlightenment and deliverance. Are you familiar with his use of those terms – how you would define enlightenment or deliverance?

Wayne> This is one of my least favorite concepts, and you’re going to have to talk to him about that one. I’ve never understood. He thought that one out in 1987, and I’ve been hearing it off and on for the last seventeen years, and I still don’t get what he’s saying. I’m sure somebody does!

> The experience of enlightenment, was that akin to realizing there was no rock in your shoe?

Wayne> That is the pointer I use, that what we call the experience of enlightenment is the moment when that apparent rock is revealed as not having any substance. It never had any substance. It still doesn’t have any substance. It simply was like a hypnotic rock. (We’re going to mix some metaphors here!) It wasn’t even a rock; it was a hypnotic suggestion of a rock. So, in that moment, yes, we can pinpoint that it was that moment that the hypnotic suggestion of the rock is no longer present.

> So shortly after that moment, there’s a great awareness of a contrast to the way it used to be?

Wayne> That’s why I prefer to move out of the physical rock. When you remove a rock, you have a profound experience of relief that the rock is no longer there. When the rock was a hypnotic suggestion, and that’s removed, what is revealed is that the whole notion of rock-ness, the whole problem of the rock, the whole idea of the rock, all dissolves. It’s a total non-issue. There is not a big relief that a non-existent rock is no longer there. It’s just not there! The understanding is that it was never there. So that previous concern with the rock was just part of the illusion. It all becomes moot in that moment.

> I just like to beat my head against the wall, you know. It’s not like there was a feeling like there was a rock and now there’s . . . there’s something more permanent than just the experience of relief of there not being a rock? Is there a relief from there being any possibility of there ever being a rock? [Laughter]

Wayne> What is it that you want to know?

> Can I stop thinking about this now?

Wayne> I hope so! I’m not going to be able to paint you a better picture of this absence.

> Is there some sense of transcendence from one way of seeing things to this new way of experiencing things – has that moment evolved for you in any way for you? Or is it just – it is.

Wayne> Again, you’re thinking in terms of a new awareness, that a new paradigm has come in to place. It is not a replacement of an old, inadequate paradigm with a new expansive working paradigm; it is the dissolution of the paradigm itself. It is that total absence that characterizes this enlightenment or awakening. It isn’t some thing.

> That’s pretty neat.

> Was there any sense before this experience happened that this experience was going to happen?

Wayne> Did I have clues? Signs? So, if you see those signs, you could think you might be nearing this? [Laughter]

> In any case, did you speak with Ramesh about it? Did he “acknowledge” something of some kind? How did that fit into your relationship with him at that time, or during the years?

Wayne> You see I didn’t call him up and say, “Hey, guess what happened?” Because it wasn’t significant. That’s the whole point. It was not “Oh, boy! I finally made it into the club with you! Now you and I are like this. And all the rest of them are out there!” The next time I was in Bombay, we talked about it. It was an event that happened, but it was not significant. I was curious, and my question was practical. I said to him, “If someone asked me, ‘Are you enlightened?’ I’d have to say, ‘No.’ for this very reason that there is no ‘one’ who is enlightened.” So what he said was – which I thought was very cool – “You’d have to say that there is understanding here.” Not here in the meat; it’s not personal. The understanding is transcendent of the meat.

So it was as good a pointer as any – away from the personal. And, yet, all the questions we personalize: What was your experience? What was it like? Were there signs? How do you feel now? What were your reactions? Because that is inevitable. This is the nature of the inquiry; the nature of the curiosity is personal. You’re sitting in the chair; you’re answering the questions: What’s it like? How are you different from me?

I can sit here until I am literally blue in the face and say we are no different; this organism and that organism are essentially the same thing. They are aspects of the same Consciousness, functioning in accordance with their natures. We can say that in these there is something more, there is this additional quality of involvement; in this one that doesn’t arise ever; in this one, it arises some of the time. So we can point to that distinction, but there is no experience of the absence of the arising of involvement, because there is no experience of the absence of something. There is only experience of the coming and going, of the relative movement.

> Can I ask the same ridiculous question a different way?

Wayne> We’ll see.

> When you talk to us, is this something you are aware of – this involvement over here, in us? When you talk to people, can you tell who is enlightened or not? That’s really the bottom line of the question.

Wayne> Can I see when there is involvement? Yes.

> So, I shouldn’t try to lie to you about this then?

Wayne> You’re welcome to lie to me. I can’t tell you how little I care whether you’re enlightened or not! It’s a total non-issue to me.

> And yet there is this conversation.

Wayne> Yes.

> You’re nature is to somehow provide some means or help to me to experience my truth as you’ve experienced. When you say you don’t care whether I’m enlightened or not, that it doesn’t matter, then what’s the purpose of these talks?

Wayne> The purpose we lay on top of it. The exchange is happening. We create meaning and purpose around it. But, ultimately, the understanding is that it’s part of a vast functioning, a massive functioning. Yesterday, you didn’t know I existed; you could not have planned coming here. The universe functioned in such a way that you had this conversation today; you had the free time; you were able to come today; I was here. That happened too. You walked down the driveway; you knocked on the door; I was still incarnate, fortunately. So, this happened. But all of that is totally out of our control. Totally. Totally.

> You’re following your nature in some fashion, and I’m following my nature in some fashion.

Wayne> Yes. Certainly. And that nature is inherent in the organism. So we can say that through the nature of these various organisms things happen. In the same way that because a toaster is constructed in a certain way, when electricity flows through it, it browns bread. A washing machine is constructed in a certain way that when the same electricity flows through it, it washes clothes. You can put the bread in the washing machine – it’s the same electricity – but it’s not the nature of that apparatus to brown bread, and you’re not going to get brown bread out of that apparatus. Yet, it is the same energy flowing through both instruments, without which they are both inert lumps.

What we’re pointing to is that which flows through that piece of meat and that piece of meat, which animate them. What is the same animating force? There’s no question that each of these apparatuses are different. But what is it that is common to them? What is it that animates both of them? That’s what we’re interested in.

> Is there no inherent happiness in this, in the joy of exploration? I’m feeling great happiness. Is that because it’s my nature, or is it something intrinsic in the exchange that is joyous?

Wayne> In this moment, that organism is programmed in such a way that this interaction produces joy, happiness. The programming is dynamic; it’s changing all the time. You could come tomorrow – you’ve had a shitty day; you were in heavy traffic; you’ve got a stomachache and headache; you’re really not feeling well – and all this ends up sounding like so much mindless bullshit, and you say, “What the hell was I thinking of? He was really good yesterday. What the hell happened to him?” This in no way denigrates the happiness and the joy. That’s very much of the moment. When it’s there, it’s there. It feels great. It is part of what is in this moment.