Webcast Transcript 7 March 2006

Wayne > (reading) Tom asks, "What is your opinion on the following statement: 'A concept is required for a seeker, as long as he has not experienced it,' i.e. a concept which at the intellectual level might be needed initially so that it can appeal to the intellect. If he has experienced a similar thing, told in the concept, then it goes directly to the heart. Am I correct?" It's not a matter of being correct or not. That is also a pointer, you see, a descriptor, and it may describe certain situations. And it certainly describes what sometimes happens through these concepts. That is one of the outcomes of the concepts.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Paul says "All this is a big joke, isn't it?" Depends if you're laughing. I daresay that if you fall and break your leg such that your leg bone is sticking out through your skin, and you look down, and you go "Ha, ha, ha, ha, this is all a very big joke!" – unlikely; it is highly unlikely that that will be your perspective, that it's all a big joke that your leg bone is protruding at a funny angle out of your skin, and that you're bleeding and going into shock.

(pause)

> How does your relationship with the past change? If you have the experience of regret, cringing, or having memories that are unpleasant or sad or even great?

Wayne > Simply, there wouldn't be any secondary involvement. There is simply the primary response, which may be a recollection of happiness or sadness or embarrassment or a feeling of awkwardness or whatever. So there may be regret that something happened, not regret that "I did it," that I should have done it otherwise, it's not that kind of regret; it's simply a regret that whatever happened turned out badly.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Tom goes on, "Let me put my question a little straighter: what is the difference between a concept and an experience? 'I am not the author' can be a concept for one, and for another it might be a burning truth because he might be addicted to various things." I don't know what you mean by that. The difference between a concept and an experience, for our purposes here, is that there is no substantial difference between a concept and an experience. But the distinction we make is between concepts and experiences versus transcendent understanding, which is not conceptual and which is not, ultimately, experiential. It becomes experiential after the fact, but in its essence it is not experiential. So it is that which we distinguish between.

(pause, reading)

Wayne > Alexander asks a question which I don't understand, so, Alexander, if you could ask that question again a little differently, perhaps I'll understand it?

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Sonny asks, "Is the reason that transcendental understanding is not an experience that there is no one there to experience it?" That's one way of talking about it, that's one way of pointing to that unspeakable, ineffable quality; to say "there is no one there."

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) So, Alexander was asking "Do fear, shame and guilt, love and compassion work as conceptual clues to make involvement in the conceptual world easier, meaning, do these emotions work as some kind of clue which fills up the emptiness between the concepts which manifest the universe?" That is not how I would describe it, no. I would say that those emotions are manifest as well, they're not something independent of the concepts that constitute the manifest universe, they're part of the manifest universe which is, in its essence, conceptual. And it doesn't matter whether they are emotional in nature, or intellectual in nature, or sensual in nature.

(pause, reading)

Wayne > Dan was asking if I had any suggestions for Lao Tzu books other than the Tao Te Ching? No, I think the Tao Te Ching is the only Lao Tzu book. Now, there are about a billion translations and interpretations of the Tao Te Ching. My favorite one is, if you go to the Advaita Press store, you'll see it on there. You don't have to buy it from the Advaita Press store if you don't want to, but it's described there, under the Tao Te Ching.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Alexander asks "Does that mean that the higher state cannot be described with any feeling because it is beyond conceptualization?" Well, it can certainly be described with feeling, but it can't be described with accuracy because it is not a thing that is describable, you see? And so, what is given in the descriptions are pointers, or poetic allusions.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Dan has a good question. He says "I can see the difference between fear due to the ego, which is psychological, and the biological fear, which is instinctive. According to the concept of Ramesh, there is an emotion related to the ego which dies after the enlightenment, but the biological emotion still continues. For me, this is obvious for emotions like fear, but how can it be true for anger? Does an instinctive anger exist?" What we're really talking about is not learned and instinctive, but rather – and this is what Ramesh is referring to when he talks about what disappears after enlightenment - are those reactions which are a product of involvement by the ego. What produce the primary reactions are instinct, the hard-wiring, the basic genetic programming of the organism, combined with the subsequent conditioning. So, those combine to form the overall programming of the organism, or let's say, the organism's nature, which is what acts, and one of the actions or reactions by the organism, it's nature, may be anger; the organism may respond with anger if it is its nature to do so. Now, what is not present in the anger is any involvement by the ego, if the action happens through an organism we call "the sage." So there is direct, in-the-moment, uninvolved anger.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Julie says, "Wayne, you give me some anticipation and hope for something better. Can this hope be an obstacle?" Certainly, it can be an obstacle, or it can be a facilitator. We'll have to see what happens, and then we can say, well, the hope helped or the hope hurt. All we can really say is that the hope is happening. With the acceptance that the hope is happening, there's no problem, there's peace.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Dan says, "Sorry to bother you, but I'm not able to understand how one could be angry with another when you absolutely know that he is not the author." You mean angry because you don't like what happened. You can not like what somebody does while simultaneously knowing that they are not the author. So, you don't hate them, you just don't like it, you intensely don't like it. So there is no question that they intended to do it…or they may have intended to do it, but that their intention authored it, you see? While at the same time, anger can arise, spontaneously, in the moment, as a reaction to something that you don't like.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Alexander says, "Is 'pure subjectivity' also a concept? Are we, in out true nature, therefore, nothing, not even God?" Reminds me of the story about this assistant rabbi in a Jewish temple. He walks by this sanctuary and he sees that the head rabbi is in the sanctuary, and he's fallen to his knees in front of the ark where the Torah is kept. And obviously he is so overcome with the majesty of this book of truths, it so impacts him, that he's literally beating his chest and he's exhorting God, and he says "God, I'm nothing, I am nothing, God!" And the assistant rabbi is so impressed by this display of piety that he rushes down and he falls to his knees next to the chief rabbi, and he says "I too, God, am nothing! I am nothing!" I don't know if you know much about Jewish temples, but they always have a non-Jew working in the temple, because on the Sabbath Jews aren't allowed to do anything, so you have to have a non-Jew to do stuff, or nothing gets done, like turning on the lights. So, this non-Jew, whom they call the shamas, sees the rabbis in there, and he is absolutely taken with this incredible display of piety and reverence, and he can't restrain himself. He rushes down and he, too, falls to his knees next to the rabbis, and he beats his chest and says "God I am nothing! I, too, am nothing!" And the chief rabbi looks over, and nudges the assistant rabbi, and says "So look who thinks he's nothing!" (laughter)

> I hope it was a Jew who asked that question! (laughter)

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Tom asks, "I know seekers from all around the world come to you for answers and you also travel. Did you observe any difference in the receptivity and interest of seekers from the West versus from the East, such as India, etc?" No, I wouldn't say that I observed a difference in the overall receptivity, but the way that receptivity is manifested is culturally different. In the East, particularly in India, there is a tradition of reverence for the guru, and it's somewhat formalized as well, so that that reverential form underlies the interactions that I have there. That is much less prevalent in the West. There is much more restraint in that regard in the West.

> Restraint? How so?

Wayne > Just in terms of their demonstrations of devotion. In India there is a tradition of obeisance, of pranaaming to the guru, and it represents a kind of surrender that is very much accepted as a way to relate, you see, and so, within that there is freedom. There is a certain kind of relaxation and openness in that kind of surrender, and that is culturally not as available in the West, where we are much more controlled and restrained; we don't bow before another, we keep our position much more. I'm not suggesting that one is better than the other, it's simply the way the different cultures are.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Issy is asking a question which, unfortunately, I don't completely understand. He says, "Given the everything is Consciousness (with a capital "C"), on a human organism level, is there more or less consciousness (with a small "c") or unconsciousness (with a small "c") in a human appearance? And even after understanding has happened through an organism, is there still unconsciousness in the organism?" You see, the problem is I don’t know what your definition of consciousness and unconsciousness (with the small "c") represents, whether it's some kind of behavior, whether it's…what is your scale for that consciousness or unconsciousness, at the phenomenal level? Often, if you're nicer to people, then you're [regarded as] more conscious; if you subscribe to some code of behavior, for example if you observe the Ten Commandments, then you're [regarded as] more consciously involved than someone who breaks those precepts – that's often what is meant by being "more conscious," "more spiritual," more God-like or heavenly. It's how you behave, according to some scale. The problem is that it depends who makes the scales. Scales vary from culture to culture, from society to society, in different conditions the scales are different, so it gets very messy.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Tom asks, is there any book that I still cherish? "I.e. which is still fresh as before, when it made an impact on you for the first time?" I would say that the Tao Te Ching is that book, and also the first 164 pages of the big book about Alcoholics Anonymous.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Issy says, "I mean, more awareness…" - this is relating to the "more conscious," "more unconscious" question – "…I mean more light of awareness being focused into the Unknown (with a capital "U"), more expansive awareness." What you're describing is a process of the seeker. The sage does not have such expansive awareness, there is no relative awareness of that kind, you see, because the Unknown, the awareness of the Unknown, that whole duality, no longer exists for the sage.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Dan asks if the format of the retreats is similar to that of the webcast? "Does that mean question-and-answer format, or is it more of a seminar format?" The retreats have a similar format, inasmuch as we sit together and then we see what happens. The longer retreats have a different kind of quality than the individual talks, because a kind of depth of silence and connection happens over the course of the week, and so there is a profoundly different sense to the retreats than to the individual kinds of talks in the weekends.

(pause)

Wayne > (reading) Issy says, "Continuing, given the nondual existence of the sage…" - we have to look at that statement, right there - "the nondual existence of the sage." I'm not sure what that means to you. The sage can be talked about in terms of nondual existence, nondual understanding, and at that point the term "sage" is synonymous with consciousness and has nothing whatsoever to do with the organism we call the "sage." Or, more precisely, has nothing specific to do with the organism we call the "sage." It has as much to do with the organism we call the "sage" as it does with the table, you see? The organism we call the "sage" is an expression of that nondual consciousness.

Wayne > (pause, reading) Robbie has a technical question about why one of the United States requires no special visas or anything.