| Selections |
| Selections on 'ego, self'
March 2010 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, I am not the body. So what is the body? An illusion? An annoyance? As I lay in the emergency room, my heart rate dipping into the low 30's,
I was not afraid to die... This body was born into an age of technological wizardry. Every day of life is a miracle I am not the body With much love, Wayne
April 2009 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, Our language can tell us a lot about the assumptions of the society in which we live. I often hear people say, "I made some bad choices that put me in the bad position I am in now." On the surface this may seem obvious and indisputable, but it introduces a bigger question. What was the source of the choice? In children it is clearer. If you ask a young child, "Why did you chose to hit Billy and take away his toy?" the child will look at you blankly. He cannot relate to the notion that he 'chose' to do what he did. In his mind, he just DID what he did. If pressed, he will explain it by saying, "I don't know, I just felt like doing it." Simply put, it was a happening. It HAPPENED. As we grow older, we learn to play the adult game. We learn how to tell elaborate stories about what happens.We learn to give REASONS for what happens. We learn to take credit and blame, which quickly morphs into pride and guilt. At the root of the adult game is the claim of personal authorship, a claim that is deeply rooted in human culture and society. These deep roots are the greatest barrier to an open and unbiased investigation into the truth or falsity of the claim of personal authorship. The Living Teaching encourages you to be tireless in your pursuit of the truth of What Is. If you find yourself curious and able to look more deeply into the Source, you have been touched in a way that is rare indeed. With much love, Wayne
A LIVING GEM FROM RAMESH (previously unpublished) The individual person will usually identify with only those actions which are voluntary and controlled. It is the ego which is concerned with the motivation, the volition, the choice of action, and is not concerned with the 'other', the spontaneous and the involuntary, which the ego considers untrustable, unreliable. The ego is concerned with common sense, logic and linear thinking and thus naturally distrusts anything that happens intuitively, spontaneously and involuntarily. 1989
January 2008 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, Who Cares? was the title of one of Ramesh's earlier books. This can be understood on two levels. On the surface level, the slang expression indicates a lack of concern or a carefree attitude. While everyone has moments of not caring, even the most god-crazed sadhu will have moments of caring about something. Which brings us to the deeper meaning in 'Who Cares?' Where there IS caring, who produces it? Do you as an individual body-mind mechanism have the capacity to create caring? Certainly you may choose to start or stop caring about something but can you always make your choice happen? If you find you can't always make your choice happen, then that would suggest that some LIVING FORCE other than the egoic you determines what happens. It is this LIVING FORCE that Advaita is concerned with and it was with the hope of helping you discover this LIVING FORCE that Ramesh asked 'Who Cares?' With much love, Wayne
A LIVING GEM FROM RAMESH (previously unpublished)
Hermosa Beach, 1 March 2005 Webcast Transcript Excerpt Wayne: What is you name? My name is Sheila. Wayne: Hi Sheila. How is it you find yourself here today? My friend invited me. Wayne: I see. So what did he tell you, to induce you to come down? I haven't seen him in a long time, but we just had a conversation about spirituality, and he said he thought I might want to come down to Hermosa Beach and check things out. Wayne: I see. So what, about spirituality, were you talking about? Just being a better person; not being so material - just bettering myself. Wayne: What's wrong with you? [laughter] I feel like I'm too material. We had a three hour conversation about it. Wayne: Was he telling you that you were too material? No, I feel that way. I feel guilty a lot of the time. I feel like I don't send out enough love to people, and I'm too selfish. That's how I feel. Wayne: So, it might be interesting to take a look - I mean, I believe that's a genuine feeling – you feel that you're not loving enough, or that you're too selfish, or too concerned with your own... I'm too self-absorbed. Wayne: Okay, so assuming that you are self-absorbed, to whatever degree – we'll leave the 'too' out of it. We'll just say that there is self-absorption. So that self-absorption is there. If we start there and work backwards to the source of the self-absorption, how is it that Sheila has become self-absorbed? Did you one day decide, "I think I'm going to be self-absorbed today?" No. Wayne: No. So the self-absorption happened. Yeah, little by little. Wayne: Okay, little by little, and we'll assume there's some genetic predisposition to self-absorption, and some sort of quality in your body that may predispose you to be self-absorbed. Then your experiences in life, little by little, may have fostered an increase in self-absorption. Now those events in your life, that may have increased the self-absorption – the real question is, did you engineer those events? I don't know, I think so. I have to take responsibility, right? Wayne: I don't know, I mean we're just asking questions here - there are no right or wrong answers. The process that's happening here is one of inquiry and examination; where you find out for yourself, by looking at your own experiences. So in the course of your life, experiences happen. The real question is, what was your part in bringing those experiences into being? Presumably people entered your life that you didn't even know existed. How could you have brought them in, if you didn't even know that they were alive? Do you see what I'm driving at? Yeah. Wayne: So there's stuff that's happened in your life - people that you've met - experiences that you've had - that were part of a much larger happening than what you could possibly create with your own physical being. So if you can look for yourself at your own experience and your own background, you may begin to see that how you are in this moment, with whatever degree of self-absorption that you have, is a product of huge forces outside of your egoic control. So what I'm doing here is simply pointing your attention to look, and then you need to draw your own conclusions from your own looking, you see? Now if you look, and you see that these other forces were operative, and were instrumental in creating who you are today, then that guilt eases naturally, on it's own. You don't have to make any efforts to reduce it; it simply dissipates in the seeing, as you understand that who you are and what you are is a function of the universe, and that includes your finer qualities and those qualities that you and others might not like. I mean, we're all a mixed bag - everyone is a mixed bag of qualities. Clearly, if you were in charge - if any of us were in charge and capable of creating our own realities - we'd all be saints! We'd be loving and kind and generous all the time, because when we're loving and kind and generous, you feel better, everybody feels better, and it brings more joy into your life. It's all this big, positive cycle. It's easy to see. Once you open your eyes and look around, you say, "Yeah, the more generous I am, the more kind I am, the more loving I am, the more open I am, the more loving, kind, generous and open the world is." So once you identify that, presumably you do it, right? I mean, if you had the capacity to do that, everyone would. So the fact that despite your best intentions, and your most earnest observations and efforts, you're still filled with positive and negative qualities, seems to suggest a certain lack of control on the part of the organism, in terms of being the end point of the source. How are we doing so far? Better. [laughter]
Hermosa Beach, 15 February 2005 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...The use of the terms ego, doer, author - my understanding is that everything is within that context. It's all Consciousness. The ego is part of that Consciousness, so it's not like it's a bad thing, a wrong thing, or something to transcend. But there's this big conversation about it. Wayne: There is indeed. So, it's important to define the term. When I talk about ego, usually I'm talking about the sense of personal authorship. So then there isn't some higher state. The higher state is only in reference to a lower state. When you get rid of the higher/lower modality and you talk about this transcendence, there's nothing experiential about it. So, as you swing higher and lower within your own psychology, there's no particular resistance to dropping into a particularly foul mood. There's no involvement by the egoic me in that process. The process happens in the absence of a 'me' to become involved. Some people refer to the false sense of personal authorship or the false claim of personal authorship as the ego. In my lexicon, the ego in fact does nothing. Its sole function is to claim the functioning of the universe as it happens through a particular organism as its doing. It is claiming the subjectivity of the source as this, identifying with this and then claiming primacy as this. When you look into it, it is such a ludicrous point! It is the most ridiculous one - totally unsupportable. And, yet, that profound sense that I'm the one making it happen is a central feature of virtually every human. Ramesh, who is my guru, coined a wonderful phrase 'divine hypnosis' to describe this sense that the ego has of primacy. And it has it even if the intellect fully acknowledges that it couldn't possibly be the source, that it's a limited instrument. Yet, despite this conviction, there is this profound sense of being the source. That's why the term 'divine hypnosis' is so beautiful. If everything is divine, if everything is one, then even the presence of the ego must be part of that. So it's not self-hypnosis; the ego can't even do that. It may claim that it does it, but again it's a false claim. It's a false claim. So even if someone would say, "Oh, I just washed my car," within that context you're saying that's perceived as authorship? Wayne: Not necessarily. It may be perceived as authorship. The sage can say, "I washed my car," and it's a statement as devoid of authorship as, "The sun rose at 6:53 this morning." Both are statements of fact. I - this organism - washed the car. That happened. The difference is? Wayne: The difference is if this authoring 'me' is present to claim the washing of the car as 'my egoic doing'. So, the fact that he was able to wash the car is only due to the understanding that they only exist because of the whole. So everything up to that point, including the conditioning of the organism, needed to be such that the car could even be washed. Wayne: Right. Certain organisms never wash their cars. They don't care about whether their cars are dirty; they don't have the energy to do it; they don't have the money to pay somebody else to do it. So the car is always filthy. But they might do that? Wayne: They will do something else. Something is doing all the time, but they're thinking they are doing. Wayne: That's correct. So it is the claim of authorship that is the point at which the suffering is created - this involvement by me in the action, whatever the action is. Something as mundane as washing the car has a lot less potential for egoic claim. Now, "I went over and helped my neighbor put up his barn," is more likely an activity in which the ego will claim involvement: I did that because I'm a nice person; I did that because I'm a responsible member of society. All of those things that will inflate the ego and give it power and substance by claiming that it did those. The termination point is 'I did'. There is that process of doing, but it doesn't mean anything about you. That's where the ego wants to kick in. Wayne: So it is in fact the nature of that 'you'. There's a functional you that is identified with the action on a functional level, knowing that 'I' as the apparatus did it. And then there is that egoic you that takes that one step further. It's really an interesting moment at which that happens. The thrust of this teaching is to point you back to see for yourself the moment at which in your own experience that occurs. You're the testing ground for the teaching. It is at that point that it becomes real and immediate. At this level, it's all intellectual and kind of harry-carry. But the point at which it becomes connected to your own action is the point at which insight can occur, profound insight into the true nature of what is occurring. It is a non-intellectual process at that point. So the intellectual pointers direct you there, but they can't carry you into it...
Hermosa Beach, 21 September 2004 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...For a while, I was using "Who am I?" and trying to use other things to get it. And then I read what you wrote - the analogy of the brain surgeon and the scalpel - and I realized that I was trying to manipulate my getting something. That's why it wasn't working. And then I would ask myself "what do I do then?" Wayne: The pointer really is beyond that, you see? All of those occurrences happened as part of the functioning of Totality. You were led to this book; you responded to that particular image in a certain way in accordance with your nature. So these events coalesced to give you that thought; in the same way that you were led to the teaching in the first place and exposed to the notion of self-inquiry. All of that came to you. A day before you first heard of it you didn't know it even existed. You couldn't manufacture it; you couldn't make it happen. It came to you - unbidden, out of your control. With that understanding, it's then the ego claims that 'I' self-enquired; I self-enquired for my own reasons, meaning I self-enquired badly and selfishly. But the pointer of the teaching is that the self-enquiry happened as part of the functioning of Totality, and then it may have stopped happening as part the same functioning through the application of my book or hearing me and what I had to say. It stopped that. Then the ego said, "Oh, I finally see the light so I'm stopping it." What we're doing here is shining the light of attention on this claim by the ego that I am doing all this stuff. The self-enquiry can produce all kinds of things. What we're saying is "when I used it." We're looking at the 'I' that would use it. It was happening; certainly, self-enquiry was going on and there was an impact on the organism for doing it. You say, "I felt more at peace; more insight came when I did that." Who did that? What was the source of that? That's where we're looking...
Hermosa Beach, 20 September 2004 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...Something was said of Ramesh's classic question, "Is there anything I can do here?" I'm not familiar with that. I was wondering if you could speak on that. I'm sort of struggling with personal responsibility. Wayne: If you have something you believe is your egoic doing, where you say, "I authored this. I am the source of this" - be it a thought a feeling or action - Ramesh suggests that you deconstruct it. Essentially, you take a look and see if that thing you are claiming to be your egoic action or thought or feeling is uninfluenced by externals: by your enculturation, by your genetics, by all sorts of influences. See whether anything exists independent of those forces. If it's not independent of external forces, at what point can you claim it to be yours? That's the essence of the question...
Hermosa Beach, 14 August 2004 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...One of the problems that I'm having right now is also about letting go and the ego. What I've been hearing, that is if I'm hearing it properly, is that ego has this self-perpetuating motivation. I'm having difficulty getting around that concept of, well, that the ego is tricking you now. I'm beginning to get to the point where I can't quite understand, I'm questioning everything that I'm doing: am I taking the right path? Am I seeking the right thing? Are you in agreement that the ego has that motivation? Wayne: I can only talk from my model, and the model I use is that what we call the ego is in fact a false claimer. The sole function of the aspect of self that we call the ego is to claim what is happening - 'I' am doing it - not as a functioning element, but rather that 'I' am the source of it. This is a crucial distinction between being the source of what is happening as opposed to being the instrument through which things happen. It is no question that these forms, these body-minds that we're identifying with as what 'I' am, do things, all kinds of things. They think, they feel, they act - they do all those things. The genetic coding that enables these apparatus to do what they do is mind-boggling in its complexity and its strength in terms of determining what these organisms do - up to and including learning, up to and including having conditioned responses based on experiences. So, the programming of these instruments and apparatuses is dynamic, changing every instant. There is the additional quality that is uniquely human and that arises at around the age of two-and-a-half which is a sense within the organism that 'I' am separate and 'I' am the source of my thoughts, feelings and actions. It is an incredible occurrence when it happens. If you have children, you've likely seen this take place. We call it the 'terrible twos' because it's such a disruptive, painful process for the organism to go through. This process of moving from a state of essential unity and direct functioning with the universe to separation and the feeling "I'm" in control when I clearly am not can be incredibly painful. There is continuous evidence of the universe that you are not this incredibly powerful, central figure that your ego says you are. So there is this clash, this huge problem of reconciling this continuous message of independence and autonomy with the ongoing experience of the universe of our impotence. Most people 'grow up' and adjust to this conflict within themselves in a variety of ways. In a few organisms, a questioning of this assumption arises: "Wait a minute. This doesn't feel right." Even if it's not articulated in quite that way, there is a sense that this isn't the way it seems to be. This isn't it. There's some other way that this holds together. That is the seed of the seeker and it expresses in a variety of ways. One of the occurrences in the body-mind organism that happens from time to time, not necessarily connected to the seeking, is that the sense of separation, of claiming the operation of the organism as 'my' egoic doing, dies. It's gone - in the same way that it arrived: it came and now it's gone. That occurrence is what we call enlightenment or awakening or ultimate understanding. In my lexicon, there is a very precise definition of what we're talking about. This event of enlightenment is an event in the history of the organism in which something specific happens. That specific happening is the dissolution of that false sense of authorship. That's precisely what happens. And it does happen. Can the ego stay gone? Wayne: The 'stay gone' is the enlightenment. The 'coming and going' is what we call spiritual seeking. What's confusing is that sometimes it's gone for a while, so you are thinking this is it. But your thinking this is it is not it...
August 2004 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves, As I have been traveling around, there has been a lot of interest lately in Ramesh's concept of the working mind and the thinking mind. The working mind is, as the name suggests, the aspect of the organism that does the work of keeping the organism functioning. It is the repository of genetic heritage, memory, knowledge, culture, identity, all of those qualities that are essential for day to day living. 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 doing and become involved in that operation to the extent solely of preserving itself. It's a false claimer of primacy or authorship which arises in virtually every human at the age of about two and a half. The ego/thinking mind authors nothing. There is no such thing as ego-created action. The body-mind organism that is popularly called a sage is one in which the thinking mind has died. Famous historical resurrections not withstanding, dead is dead and there is no possibility of return. That is my working definition for what constitutes an organism called the sage and what the event of enlightenment represents. It is that very precise occurrence. Therefore, far from being a superman, the sage is completely ordinary. In this model the sage has not gained something more but rather is simply a human organism with one thing LESS....it is without the false sense of personal authorship. With love, Wayne
A LIVING GEM FROM RAMESH (previously unpublished) If you want to know precisely what is meant by 'living in the moment', take a dog out for a walk - what the dog does is precisely that.
Hermosa Beach, 29 July 2004 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...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...
April 2004 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.
July 2003 MESSAGE FROM WAYNE Hello my loves.. This is the month of Guru Pournima, a time when the Guru (both as the Source and as the teacher) is honored and celebrated. This year the Guru's Full Moon falls on July 13. In Mumbai, at Ramesh's flat, there will be refreshments served (Ramesh's wife Sharda will provide her famous iced coffee and some lovely sweets). For those of us not fortunate enough to physically make it to India for the occasion we might content ourselves with Ramesh's latest book entitled (aptly enough)...Guru Pournima in which Ramesh and some of us who love him have written about this most joyous and profound of all human relationships. If you are in the Los Angeles area on Saturday, July 12, please come join us for our own little celebration to follow the 10AM Talk at my house in Hermosa Beach. The Talk will undoubtedly center on my history with my Beloved Ramesh. It is one of my favorite topics and one I am never tired of discussing though some of you may, by now, be tired of hearing about it. So consider yourself warned! If you are unable to come to the Talk, please join us via the live webcast. Like the Teaching itself, it is free for the taking. I am very grateful to those who have, through their generosity, made it possible for me to live and Teach. Many of you have offered your love and support either directly or through your membership in the Advaita Fellowship. I want you to know that I have noticed and that I am most appreciative. It matters not if we have spoken or seen each other recently. This relationship makes no demands and has no set form. There are no requirements other than an open heart...and even that is seen as subject to change. So, whereever you find yourself on this Guru Pournima, whatever your current thoughts, whoever you find yourself attracted to....know that you are well and truly Loved. Wayne
A LIVING GEM FROM RAMESH previously unpublished) The 'direct method': Destroy the ego by seeking its identity, does raise a valid question - who is asked to destroy the ego? Perhaps the explanation is that what is to be destroyed is not the ego itself but the malignant element in the ego... the sense of personal doership, volition. When the ego finally, totally realizes that it is not in charge of life, but merely represents the body as a separate entity, a separate, uniquely programmed instrument through which the Primal Energy functions and brings about whatever is to be brought about in the moment, according to a Cosmic Law - then the ego realizes its impotency and remains placid and inactive. The ego realizes its passive role as a mere witness of all that is happening in the moment. That is self-realization.
|