| Selections |
| Selections on 'progress, improvement, getting better'
Hermosa Beach, 19 March 2005 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...But prior to that, through understanding, there seems to be a kind of progression – like things can fall off – not the sense of doership like some ultimate thing, but some prior progress. Wayne: Yes there can be, and I mean it’s not quite as widely publicized in spiritual circles, but they can also reattach sometimes. I mean when you really look at your spiritual journey objectively, you’ll see that yes, there were insights profound, maybe life-changing, and then as time went by, and other things crept in and altered that conviction; that perception, we could say that you back-slid back into more involvement through various other things. So the spiritual process tends to be much more of an ebb-and-flow, like a kind of pendulum swing into separation and unity...
Hermosa Beach, 28 October 2004 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...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...
Hermosa Beach, 29 April 2005 Webcast Transcript Excerpt ...It seems to be a built-in mechanism, at least in humans, to know who they are, to desire to know their own nature. Otherwise, why would we be sitting here? Wayne: I don’t think that it’s a broad human desire at all. I think the number of people in this room indicates that it’s a very narrow band of people who are interested in knowing their true nature – very narrow indeed! There seems to be something that calls. Wayne: For seekers, absolutely! There is no question. If you are bitten with this bug, if you have this particular addiction, if you will, then there’s no question that you are drawn to k now; you are drawn to read these books, to be in the environments like this, to talk to people who might be able to give you insight. But you couldn’t pay 99.9 percent of the people out there to spend an hour and a half in this room. It would be sheer hell! They would have to be desperate for the money. Why are we junkies then? Wayne: Why is anybody a junkie? I have no clue. Wayne: That is part of ‘what is’. It is the nature of this organism to be interested in this subject. It is the nature of another organism to be interested in how much money they can get. Another organism is interested in how many salt and pepper shakers they can collect. It doesn’t matter what the interest is on the part of the organism. Each organism is designed and created with different interests, different values. But this goes far back to the ancients, the Tao, to seekers and teachers. Wayne: That’s right. It goes back to the question of, "What is Consciousness trying to prove by all of this? What’s the objective? What’s the reason or rationale?" There are thousands of explanations. Every religion has an explanation. Most spiritual enterprises have their explanation; generally self-serving, but explanations nonetheless: we are riding the crest of the wave of human evolution, whatever we are; we are advancing the cause of Consciousness; we are the front line in the movement toward a better tomorrow. In all of those reasons and rationales is the idea that Consciousness is getting better and we’re part of that process. I guess I was thinking about having read the Buddha’s vow, where he talks about directing his entire life to bringing about enlightenment for every sentient being, or something like that, as if that were the purpose. I guess that stuck in my head. I don’t know what... Wayne: I don’t know either. As far as I’m concerned not every sentient being needs enlightenment. Enlightenment is only necessary where there’s a sense of separation, which is a peculiar human trait. Animals, insects, bacteria, viruses do not need to be enlightened because they do not have the sense of separation. I guess what stuck in my head about that vow was the idea that there was work to be done. Wayne: There may be all kinds of work to be done, and organisms are created to do it. Clearly there is a tremendous number of things in this manifest universe that need to be done. There are cures for diseases that have to be discovered; there are murders that need to be committed; there are children that have to be molested; there are all kinds of things that have to be done, and organisms are created to do them. With no purpose. Wayne: You can supply the purpose afterwards. I’m stuck there. This touches upon what he brought up. Earlier you were asked what difference you thought it would make if all humans in the world were enlightened. And you said the world would be very different. And yet opposed to that there is the opposite idea that it doesn’t make any difference at all. So there’s this sort of pendulum between these two concepts. Wayne: Well by different. I mean that the dynamic of human interaction would be different because without this sense of personal involvement hate is impossible, guilt is impossible, shame is impossible. Those qualities that are now part of ‘what is’ would not be part of ‘what is’ in that hypothetical future, so things would be different. How things would then play out is anybody’s speculation. That’s why I said they would be different; I did not say how they would be different. Well, there is this sort of idea going around the universe that until all the possibilities of awakening have actualized in phenomenal reality, Totality is incomplete. It’s just a concept, but it exists as a concept. It may actualize or it may not. And this touches upon the Bodhisattva idea that as long as there are body-minds that are not awake, this particular body-mind being awake or not being awake is incomplete until the transmission has somehow spread to every branch of the tree. I don’t know. Wayne: Well, I’m well aware of the concept. And it is understood to be purely a concept when seen within the context that all these things (that are supposed to become aware) are already one. There is no separation, so it’s already complete. How can we talk of completeness in a totality that is whole? The completeness is only meaningful within the context of separation. And if there is no separation, with the understanding that it is all one, it makes no sense.
|