Webcast Transcript 29 July 2004

> Could you talk about the working mind and the thinking mind?

Wayne> What do you understand about it so far?

> The working part, I guess, is the things that the mind needs to do in order to take care of the basic activities of living. The thinking mind is the extra machinations the mind goes through worrying about things, planning things, hypothesizing, and so on. It’s not really clear to me.

Wayne> So the working mind is, as the name suggests, the aspect of the mind that does the work of keeping the organism functioning. It is the repository of memory, knowledge, culture, identity, all of those qualities that are essential for the working of the organism. The working mind functions in accordance with its programming. This programming is dynamic; it’s an ongoing process whereby new information is being added to the mix all the time.

What Ramesh calls the thinking mind is another term for what is commonly referred to as the ego. The thinking mind’s sole function – the only thing it does – is to claim the operation of the working mind as its own and become involved in that operation to the extent solely of preserving itself. It’s a false claim of primacy or authorship.

> So, the thinking mind arises around age two?

Wayne> Correct – around age two to two-and-a-half.

> Does the sage ever experience the thinking mind again or is that just gone?

Wayne> No. The definition of what we call the sage is an organism in which that thinking mind is dead.

> It never arises again?

Wayne> It’s dead. Resurrections not withstanding, dead is dead.

> In a way, that’s kind of the definition of the sage, where the thinking mind is seen to be false.

Wayne> That is my working definition for what constitutes an organism called the sage and what the event of enlightenment is. It is that very precise occurrence.

> Is the thinking mind the same as horizontal thinking?

Wayne> It is a projection of the moment into the past and future in regards to “me.” This is the crucial element. Both planning and memory could be said to be operations of the working mind: the memory is thinking about something that occurred in the past; the planning is for something that is projected to occur in the future. Those are horizontal considerations by the working mind. Ultimately, that occurrence is in the moment: the planning is in the moment; the memory is in the moment. There is no projection outside of the moment by the “me.”

It is the horizontal involvement by the thinking mind that creates not planning, but projected fear: what will become of “me” if things don’t work out well? It is guilt: “I” did something horrible. That is not a memory of the event; rather, it is involvement by the “me” in what was remembered.

> For the sage, fear can still arise under certain circumstances.

Wayne> Of course,

> Isn’t it a protection of the body/mind mechanism?

Wayne> Absolutely. The organism is programmed to react. If a wild animal or even the modern-day equivalent of a snarling dog rushes at you as you’re walking along, or comes up to the fence barking and lunging toward you, fear arises in the organism. It is very likely that there will be a response of fear by the organism in which adrenaline is injected into the body in preparation for flight or fight, and to give additional strength and energy to the organism so it can deal with the situation at hand.

> On the other hand, a lot of other hypothesized fears don’t arise anymore?

Wayne> Projected fears, which are fears that are concerned with what will become of “me,” that are involved with that “me,” just don’t arise because that “me” is not active.

[Pause]

> Wayne, I’ve heard many times in the Teaching about the involvement that gets cut off vertically very rapidly because the sage does not have the sense of authorship. In some cases when the reaction to an event that happens gets prolonged, even for hours, would that mean that the ego/author got involved? Or, in other words, is the sage’s (talking about that body/mind organism) reaction to an event always short-lived?

Wayne> This idea that the involvement is cut off immediately is one way of talking about it. Generally, the way that phrase developed was Ramesh would talk about how the Teaching can arise in the moment and cut off the involvement by the “me,” by the thinking mind. So when asked how it is for the sage, he used that same analogy. He said that the cutting off is instantaneous, which is another way of saying that the involvement never happens. The real pointer is that for the sage there is no involvement by a “me,” because the “me” simply doesn’t exist anymore, so there is no point in which the involvement can happen horizontally.

What you may see from the outside, however, is that the sage organism is involved in something over time or continuously. The organism is sad; there’s grief. It isn’t that the sage experiences grief for a moment and then it’s cut off and it’s done; that grief may continue over a period time, of hours and days; weeks, even. The grief may continue, but it is a function of the organism. There is no involvement in that grief by any one.

> Thoughts related to the “me” simply don’t arise anymore for the sage?

Wayne> Exactly. There is nothing for it to relate to; there is no “me” to be concerned with.

> It’s not even a matter of identifying with those thoughts; they just aren’t there.

Wayne> There is no place from which they can spring. The example that is sometimes used is of a man: the man is either bearded or clean-shaven; there is the presence or the absence of the hair on his face. A boy is neither bearded nor clean-shaven.

> Very clear. Thank you.

> Now the question pops up of how to get rid of the thinking mind, how to lose the involvement.

Wayne> Well, one approach is to see what you did to bring that involvement into being in the first place, then, reverse the process. However, in looking at it you may find that you didn’t bring this thinking mind into being. If you didn’t bring it into being in the first place, then the question is, how do you propose to be rid of it? You didn’t create it. Would it not be the responsibility of the same power, the same force of the universe that put it there to remove it?

> So, this removal seems to be a process. For me there are aspects of selfish involvement that are clearly dead, not coming back. Then there are other things where it’s less clear about what exactly is going on. It seems like a simple distinction that you’re making about the working and thinking mind. But in terms of what’s inside my head - my behavior, my thoughts, my feelings - it doesn’t seem like an easy distinction any more.

Wayne> A totally nonessential distinction, actually.

> It doesn’t matter.

Wayne> It absolutely does not matter. The distinction is useful only in answering the question as to what it is that is gone in this final understanding. So it’s used as a pointer for that purpose. There’s really nothing particularly useful about attempting to identify which aspects of one’s own behavior and reactions are products of the working mind or the thinking mind.

> That’s an attempt of trying to form some sort of identity of being at a certain place on a certain scale of evolution, I guess.

[Pause]

> Something that is usually associated with the ego is the need for recognition. Would this be absent in the sage, or does the body/mind mechanism desire recognition for things that it does or creates?

Wayne> It’s not quite as simple as that because the organism can desire recognition for different reasons. Often the motivation for recognition is to have fulfillment; there is the sense that when the ego is recognized, lauded and given credit for what it has done, then it is given power, it is given energy. The ego desperately seeks a replenishment of energy, of potency or power, because it has none. So, it is constantly seeking some sign that it has some, and one of those signs is recognition.

But there are other reasons the organism may seek recognition that have nothing to do with that sense of personal authorship. You can’t necessarily ascribe that behavior or that desire to one aspect or another.

[Pause]

> What’s the difference between an experience of oneness, which a lot of people have reported, and the apperception of the sage? Is it simply that one is only momentary or lasts for a period of time, whereas the apperception . . . ?

Wayne> It’s like asking the difference between sleep and death.

> Well, you wake up from sleep eventually.

Wayne> Right. So the experience of unity ends.

> But it could go on for months.

Wayne> Sure.

> Is that the only difference really?

Wayne> It is – and it’s a pretty big difference. It’s actually a quantum difference.

> But still the experience of oneness would be a glimpse of what it was like?

Wayne> Yes, but the point being that the experience of oneness is only significant when it ends. Otherwise, there is no one for whom it is significant, because it is the absence of the one for whom there would be significance. So until that one returns, there’s no one for whom the “experience of unity” has any meaning.

[Pause]

> Is involvement or the ending of involvement a play of God, as well as the resistance of seeing things this way?

Wayne> Everything is a play of God. Everything. Everything.

> I have a question about the recognition issue. I sent someone a gift that I put a lot of thought into. There was no acknowledgement of the gift by that person. There is hurt. Is this the claimer that’s hurt? Could the sage also feel hurt in this situation?

Wayne> The way you describe it, Larry, it wasn’t a gift. If you give something with the expectation that you’re going to get something back, then it’s barter, an exchange or a business deal; it’s not a gift. So what you’re describing is disappointment that the business deal didn’t go the way you expected.

> Absolutely right. Thanks. I needed to hear that.