| Messages |
| Selections on 'Acceptance, fatalism'
April 2010 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, Of the many complex and often confusing concepts that arise in this Teaching, perhaps one of the most difficult is the distinction between duality and dualism. This is made all the more confusing because this Teaching is often called Nonduality when it should more rightly be called Nondualism. Dualism is by its very nature judgmental and exclusive. It suggests that there is no Unity now. Unity is imagined as the future perfect state in which what is presently considered to be bad, evil and painful is eliminated. Dualism is thus linked to suffering because in dualism, What Is manifest now--and this of course includes you--is thought to be incomplete, flawed and in desperate need of revision. In dualism, duality is seen as a flaw to be overcome. In dualism, Enlightenment is viewed as the end of duality. The term duality is descriptive. It points to the experiential fact that the Whole is made manifest through the harmony of polaric opposites. The yin/yang symbol visually expresses this principle. Duality is a term that affirms What Is. It INCLUDES the negative, painful and unpleasant and acknowledges that they exist as part of the Unity. Duality can thus be considered to be the structure of the phenomenal world which is understood to be a manifestation of the Source. Implicit in duality is acceptance of What IS--which of course includes you. In duality, Enlightenment is viewed as the end of dualism. I hope this helps. With love, Wayne September 2007 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, I am periodically taken to task for not having a teaching style more like some of my preceptors - most notably, Nisargadatta Maharaj. Maharaj was famous for speaking from the standpoint of the Absolute. He would say things such as, "I was never born and I will never die" and "I am awake even when I am asleep." Such assertively non-dual statements sometimes had the effect of shocking his listeners into a profound, transcendent Seeing. I am sympathetic to this approach, but I have rarely been comfortable using it. I feel much more at home when I am meeting my listeners where THEY are... most of them believing that they were born and will die and that they are asleep while asleep. From this point of 'obvious' truth we can then proceed to examine the more profound, underlying nature of this 'one' who lives and dies and sleeps. No one can deny that there is EXISTENCE here. The nature of that EXISTENCE can (and has been) debated endlessly. But this EXISTENCE is self-proving. It is not a philosophical debating point but a self-affirming Truth. It is here at the center when you pull off the onion-like layers of your apparent self - the self that lives and dies and sleeps and wakes. We are the victims of our beliefs. When you 'believe' the pointers of a teacher such as Maharaj, the inevitable result is a kind of nihilism in which all that is apparent (including yourself) is denied as meaningless and illusory. When you believe the pointers of a teacher such as myself, the inevitable result is the sense of having a progressively deeper and truer knowledge about the nature of Existence. So pick your poison. With a little luck...either one will kill 'you'. With much love, Wayne
January 2009 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, The Living Teaching is built on the principle of investigation. True Faith is understood to be sighted rather than believed. It arises naturally out of the Understanding of the nature of What Is. Within the Living Teaching, faith and Acceptance are bound together. Whatever you look deeply into may lead you to confront The Mystery that lies at the root of everything. Faith is the profound Understanding of what truly Is. Deep looking happens through a variety of channels. People we call Thinkers, look primarily with their intellects. People we call Feelers look primarily with their hearts. People we call Doers, look primarily thorough their deeds. People we call Yogis look primarily through their breath and bodies. The Living Teaching embraces and enfolds all these channels. The Living Teaching can be understood as the river from which all the separate channels break off and to which all the separate channels inevitably return. With love, Wayne
A LIVING GEM FROM RAMESH (previously unpublished) The real secret of life is to understand that the past must be abandoned, that the unknown cannot be avoided, and that nothing can be ultimately fixed. When a man knows this, he really lives for the first time in his life. By holding his breath, he loses it, by letting go he finds it. 1989
Hermosa Beach, 15 February 2005 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...you were talking about acceptance, and how that is sort of an all-encompassing acceptance beyond the sense of acceptance or non-acceptance. For me, it just didn't seem to sit straight. Even if we are unable to change conditions, that itself is within the acceptance of everything, so then I was curious as to who is the person who finds that hideous. Wayne: Actually, what I found hideous was the suggestion that the reason you were sick was because of some limitation on your part: That you weren't spiritually fit enough, you hadn't aligned yourself properly with the will of God, and therefore the reason you were sick was essentially your fault. So, it doesn't contradict the notion of acceptance, because acceptance is total; acceptance is not specific. Within acceptance is the realization or understanding that every organism has preferences in accordance with its nature. I can both say I think that that idea is hideous, meaning I don't like it, and there is also complete acceptance, because included in the acceptance is acceptance of the fact that I don't like it. Precisely. Your opinion that "'it's hideous"? Wayne: That's right. So, then we need to look at the sense of the 'I' in the organism. You could break it down to the sense of who is asking this question. Is it really myself asking about myself if I'm coming from the space that everything is me? Wayne: Yes. But then there seems to be this delineation or this slightly different categorization of the'I' or the ego. It has no opinion or likes or dislikes. I'm just trying to come to terms with that. Wayne: In my model, and it is simply a model, all of the separate organisms, with their individual characteristics and qualities, are aspects of the whole. In no way separate. So they are at once identifiable as entities, with qualities and characteristics... [cell phone rings] I apologize. Of course, that would be fine if that happens. Wayne: It's funny that you should say that. I apologize, nonetheless. Wayne: Your apology is certainly accepted. About eight months ago, there was a fellow sitting precisely where you're sitting, and his cell phone rang AND he answered it. My response was, "Get the fuck out of here right now! Go!" I was furious! Absolutely furious at the utter disrespect for the teaching. And I found that was incompletely intolerable, and I kicked his ass out and told him, "Don't come back!" I was yelling at him! So, there was another guy who had actually come with him - I didn't know it at the time; after a bit he hesitantly raised his hand and said, "You were talking about acceptance. So, how does this work?" [Laughter] It was great, because it was pointing precisely to this question. When I talk about acceptance, it is non-specific. It is total. The acceptance includes everything, all the dualistic opposites. Acceptance is often confused with approval, where you have to like everything, where you say everything is fine and you have no resistance to anything. And this is held as some kind of ideal in certain circles. But it is totally unrealistic. It is as impossible a notion as the idea of a one-ended stick or single-sided coin. In fact, the more one refuses one thought, the more one inspires the other. Wayne: Indeed. Because it is understood that within each opposite is the totality of the other. That's the beauty of the yin-yang symbol. You can separate them and say, "Oh, I only want the good; I only want the white part." But it will complete itself out of itself. The balance will be restored, because that is the very nature of this dualistic universe. Before the phone rang, you were talking about the point of the separate organism, acknowledging the fact that whatever one wants to call oneself - an organism or a person or a Peter from England, whatever it might be... Wayne: The essential pointer of Advaita - which means not two - is that everything is one; everything is Consciousness. With the understanding that everything is one, then how do we explain the multiplicity? Now, one of the ways the multiplicity has often been talked about is that this is all illusion. But that notion, as classical as it may be, is only part of the story. It is not that the appearance is illusory, what is truly illusory is the appearance of separation, the sense that each independent thing is in fact independent. The underlying understanding is that each object is an aspect of the one, in no way separate, it is simply that one does not see the linkage because it is the nature of the senses to objectify things, to quantify and make them into discrete objects. That's what the senses do in order to know. So, the universe is illusory in that aspect. Of course, there was nothing wrong with the frustration anyway. Wayne: There was frustration. Who was frustrated? Wayne: The same one who asked the question, "Who's frustrated?" So, then where do you delineate between God that came in the three times and you? Wayne: The distinction is purely poetic. But we make these kinds of life distinctions between forces greater than our physical selves and our physical selves. I have absolutely no problem using personal pronouns - saying I and mine and me - and to talk about this organism named Wayne as a separate apparatus, functionally speaking, as a convention that we use as part of this dance of life. In the same way that I am not compelled to go down to the beach in the afternoon when everybody is standing out watching the sunset and say, "My! What a magnificent rotation of the Earth obscuring the sun," because I know the sun isn't setting, and to say sunset would be an indication of one's stupidity. So I can still very comfortably say it's a beautiful sunset, while at the same time know perfectly well that it is the Earth moving in relation to the sun. You might say that perhaps there's a delineation of a God from you that is purely poetic because of the functions of language. Wayne: Functional. It is a functional difference between this limited apparatus, which was born and will die, and the totality of which it is an aspect, which is eternal. That which gives its life. Wayne: That which is its essence and which infuses it with life. Yes...
October 2004 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, Many people who come to my Talks say they are there because of an interest in enlightenment. But when we get down to what this thing called enlightenment actually IS, there is enormous confusion. When I talk about enlightenment, I talk about it very, very specifically, and it's very simple. In humans, at around the age of two-and-a-half, a shift occurs whereby they change from free-flowing, uninvolved beings to experiencing everything in terms of 'me!' and 'mine!' It is that moment in which what I call the "false sense of personal authorship" kicks in. It happens to virtually every human being. It is the false sense that 'I' as this body-mind am the source; that 'I' as this body-mind am responsible for making it all happen. It is this false sense of personal authorship that creates suffering, because the sense is that 'I' am in control of things, and, yet, there is continuous evidence to the contrary - that I'm not in control. So a powerful tension is established. In some body-minds, for whatever reason, that sense of personal authorship permanently dissolves - dies. That event, for lack of a better name, is called enlightenment. Over the millennia, generations of seekers have mystified the hell out of it. Basically, it's an event that happens in the history of some human organisms. Now, the reason this event is so interesting to people is that the organism through which it happens is no longer suffering. There is total acceptance within the organism. There is total acceptance because it is "understood" that what is, is. There is no longer a separate sense of 'me' to become involved with what is and claim it as 'mine' - egoically mine. When that process is no longer occuring, that permanent lack of occurence may be called peace or bliss or enlightenment. What is crucial to realize is that it is a happening. It happens as part of the functioning of the universe. The pointer of this teaching is that everything happens that way; everything happens as part of the functioning of Totality. With love, Wayne
Hermosa Beach, 20 September 2004 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...Wayne, in acceptance, does the pendulum swing the other way to non-acceptance? Wayne: The acceptance that Ramesh and I refer to is not something that is dualistic in nature. The acceptance is absent, so it is not the kind of acceptance that swings into non-acceptance. We can call it Acceptance (with a capital A) as a way of separating it from the acceptance that comes and goes, where you accept something and then you don't accept it. The Acceptance that is being pointed at is total; it is not relative, it is not specific and it is not personal. It is total. Would you say it is an acceptance that includes non-acceptance? Wayne: It includes everything. It, of itself, does not move. The specific reference here was to the pendulum model I used to use a lot, that the energy of swinging into something carries with it the energy to swing into it's polaric opposite. Whenever there is one thing, implicit in it is the movement into its opposite. That is the very essence of the manifest universe, the very essence of that which is dualistic in nature. So, the Acceptance that is total is not relative; it is that within which the relative exists. Is there another word for acceptance? Wayne: Lots of them. Because the word acceptance for me brings it into duality. If I look at the state where I'm really all right with everything, it's not even acceptance; there's no acceptance or non-acceptance. Wayne: We can call it Presence; we can call it Totality; we can call it Source; we can call it Consciousness. The 'Acceptance of What Is' as in the 'Totality of What Is', Totality. So the Acceptance we're talking about is not approval, which comes and goes - approval and disapproval. It's the language. Wayne: Ultimately, we're stuck with language, and any word, of course, is by its very nature dualistic. Any concept, any experience - even the experience of Presence - is relative and dualistic. It must be. It absolutely must be. Much in spirituality and spiritual circles is about transcending that which is dualistic, to get to that which is this noumenal - this total undefined Presence. It's a movement of homing in on "it," a ridding oneself of a connection or association with all of this. So, you get rid of the distractions, you get rid of all of the muck of the mundane, and then you home in on what is essential, on what is total and spiritual and godly and, ultimately, nothing. This was my path as well. I was involved in a variety of practices that would get me more centered, get me more present, to this place that I considered to be spiritual. When I met Ramesh, the whole paradigm shifted. Instead of homing in on what was spiritual, this inward seeking energy moved out and expanded to include all that was manifest as spiritual. It was understood that everything is an expression of the source. So if you want to connect with what is God, just relax; touch yourself or touch somebody else. Enjoy. Laugh. Live. That is God manifest. It was a wonderful change. This is always the part that I have a little trouble with, because I always imagine a murderer walking into this house with a gun pointing at my son or daughter, and it is very difficult for me to call that spiritual. Wayne: It is difficult. You have to really expand your definition of what is spiritual, beyond what you like, beyond what feels good to you, to include the most horrific thing imaginable, so it is in the all-inclusive nature of "what is." The pointer is to specifically that: every thing - good and bad, what we like and don't like, that hurts our heart and expands our heart - is a product of the same source. We're conditioned from very early on with the notion that God is the good stuff. The bad stuff is suggested to be the devil. Or you: human beings are the source of the bad stuff, and when you get rid of the human qualities then you will be more like God. This very basic notion infuses not only this culture, but all cultures: God is the big perfect thing, and that which is here and earthbound and mundane is sullied, is somehow tarnished or dirty. So, this all-inclusive notion - which is what I found so expansive about Ramesh's teaching - broadened the scope of what was Godly, what was spiritual. When he used the term Totality, he really meant it. This Totality is actually total; it includes everything. The bad, the ugly, the greatest murderers, the torturers, the child molesters - all of the horrors - are included in what was ultimately god. The Acceptance that is pointed at, of this Totality being what it is, does not preclude the human response. You're programmed as an instrument to respond in a human way, and if somebody comes in and points a gun at you, you'll respond based on your programming. You may run or make a counterattack; you'll act in accordance with whatever your nature is in that moment. This acceptance is not passivity; it has nothing to do with action or response. It includes every imaginable response. When I was in Bombay in January, some idiot came to one of the sessions and thought he would be really clever and test Ramesh. He pulled a toy gun on him to see how he would react, because he thought it would determine how much of a sage Ramesh was, or some nonsense. Since Ramesh didn't react, he thought he had determined that Ramesh was the real thing. When I saw Ramesh a little later, he said he didn't respond with fear because the guy wasn't a very good actor! There is no litmus test of reaction that is an indicator of one's spiritual condition or spiritual awareness. The reaction of the organism is in accordance with its program and nature. It reacts in the moment based on its programming in that moment...
April 2004 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, Compassion is a quality that is much valued and discussed in spiritual circles. We need to look at what is generally meant by this term - compassion. The superficial meaning is 'kindness'; a caring, heart-centered interaction, in which the recipient leaves feeling good. Compassion is actually deeper than that. I have seen what I would consider to be compassion from a sage, specifically Ramesh, which from the standpoint of the recipient was harsh. Ramesh isn't a harsh character, but sometimes the stripping away of a false belief, while compassionate, is not a gentle or sweet action. As we get older, often we become encrusted with those beliefs that were earlier used to create a sense of personal security. Of course, it never worked for very long. There is no security in life. The essence of life being change, there's always that underlying tickle of uncertainty, of not being secure. The usual solution to this is to try and patch up the structure by applying new and stronger beliefs. Often the demolition of these encrusted false beliefs is a painful process; it leaves a person feeling uncomfortable, discontent, and uncertain. The sage will sometimes raze the whole structure. It is, to quote Hafiz, "to take away those toys that bring you no joy." If you see a two-year-old with a sharp knife, and you take it away from him he's going to scream. As far as he's concerned, you've done him a great harm. "That was MY toy. I was having fun with that." That he was about to chop his leg off and you prevented that from happening, I would say was a compassionate act. But the child doesn't see it as a compassionate act. So, often the action of the sage is not seen as compassionate. If I had to define compassion, I would say that the compassion of the sage is total acceptance. The total acceptance, which means you are accepted completely as you are in the moment. The sage accepts the disciple totally as he is. This acceptance is, in fact, an underlying quality to every action by the sage. The action may be to take away the toys, to push the disciple into areas where the disciple isn't comfortable, to ask difficult questions and not let up. So the disciple goes away unhappy. "How can this be compassion? I'm unhappy. He wasn't kind and gentle with me. I feel worse now then I did when I walked in and met him." It is compassionate for one reason: there is no personal agenda on the part of the sage. Every single act is compassionate because there is no "me" desiring something for itself as part of the action. This is truly the blessing of the sage. With much love, Wayne
A LIVING GEM FROM RAMESH (previously unpublished) The ego - without the sense of doership - the mere identification with the body-mind organism, is, as such, merely a reflection of the programming in action. In the absence of the sense of doership there is no personal involvement
March 2003 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Everyone is talking about THE WAR because the news is talking about THE WAR. The Teaching of Advaita has no position on such matters other than to point to the fact that war exists. Acceptance of this fact leads to a peace that exists at the center of the storm. This peace may exist along with actions that represent opposition to whatever is going on. So it is quite possible to Accept and at the same time march in a peace demonstration or commit a violent act. The Acceptance this Teaching points to underlies action and non-action but advocates neither. I really enjoyed our trip to Sedona last week. The group there was particularly sweet...interested, loving and alive. And we even got a bit of snow to dust the magnificent red rocks. Some photos from the trip can be found under EVENT PHOTOS on the advaita.org website. ENJOY!! With much love, Wayne
A LIVING GEM FROM RAMESH (previously unpublished) There is nothing more surprising and mysterious than perfectly ordinary objects and ordinary happenings. Can there truly be anything more wonderful than the astonishing fact that we exist, we breathe, eat, sleep, walk, laugh and cry? The danger of scientific investigation is that in attempting to explain these mysteries it may imagine that they have been explained away. But it has been the actual experience of many true scientists that the more you know, the more mysterious everything becomes until you are forced to roar with laughter at your efforts to make yourself the equal of God. Does Consciousness exist in matter or is it the other way around?!
|