The Fundamental Unity of Being

[Jehu]

Well, I guess this bears some thought. There is surely a perfecting process going on, for example, we have evolution, of galaxies and life forms. Not randomly, but intelligently and with purpose.

Indeed, but you must understand that Being has no final purpose, goal or plan, that is to say, beyond simply being. Further, though it appears, as you say, that evolution is driving the Universe toward ever more complex forms such as cognizant living beings, this is only an illusion; for there can be no Universe without that there already existed such a cognizant being. So too is it with all things, for the Principle of Identity creates each thing after its own kind, and if a certain kind of thing does not already exist – potentially, then it simply cannot arise.

How do you reconcile suffering, and ignorance, with perfection?

Ignorance and the suffering that it generates are relative entities, and so are not real; nevertheless, they seem real enough to those sentient beings who do not know better. On the other hand, the complement of suffering – joy, partakes of an absolute existence, and so is always present. The reason we sometimes cannot experience joy is not because it is not present, but because our suffering has obscured it.

Yes, that is a form of perfection, and also a clue that there is no real guilt, all are perfect and pure.

Indeed. It is said that the suffering of remorse at one’s past actions is a poor substitute for the renunciation of such actions in the future.

I wouldn't argue with it, at the same time, one can begin serving immediately.

Yes, certainly, but one must be wary of the ego-personality, which will subtly insinuate itself in the most altruistic of activities. How does one know that the ego is involved? It is very simply, if a thing need be thought out in advance of doing it, then this action is one of the ego. The awakened ones do not plan to help others, they simply do it – wherever and whenever the need arises, and they always do what is appropriate in every situation, for their guidance comes, not from the ego, but from their true self. Jesus once said that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and the Buddha, that an unselfish act cannot bring about suffering, and though the two statement may not appear equivalent, they are.

I once new a man who was so distraught at the thought that there were children going hungry in the world that he worked himself nearly to the point of a breakdown to raise money for an aid organization; but in the end, was it the suffering of the children he wanted to alleviate, our was it his own suffering that he was trying to escape? Now, it would appear that it really doesn’t matter, for in either case, the children were getting more food, but we cannot fool the Absolute, and the outcome of each case will be quite different, and if it was his own needs that he was serving, then he will have brought about, not less suffering in the world, but more.

[Iolaus]

How do you know Being has no purpose or plan? Well, you said "final purpose." I would probably agree with that.

As for this:

Further, though it appears, as you say, that evolution is driving the Universe toward ever more complex forms such as cognizant living beings, this is only an illusion; for there can be no Universe without that there already existed such a cognizant being. So too is it with all things, for the Principle of Identity creates each thing after its own kind, and if a certain kind of thing does not already exist – potentially, then it simply cannot arise.

I don't know that I understand it well enough to agree or not.

Ignorance and the suffering that it generates are relative entities, and so are not real; nevertheless, they seem real enough to those sentient beings who do not know better.

But how do you say everything is perfect when many sentient beings suffer? The way I see it, things are sort of perfect and not perfect at the same time.

How does one know that the ego is involved? It is very simply, if a thing need be thought out in advance of doing it, then this action is one of the ego.

That seems a bit harsh as a standard. One cannot plan anything.

Jesus once said that a good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and the Buddha, that an unselfish act cannot bring about suffering, and though the two statement may not appear equivalent, they are.

Yes, they are very equivalent.

[Jehu]

How do you know Being has no purpose or plan? Well, you said "final purpose." I would probably agree with that.

That which has a purpose serves another - as its instrument, but Being is that than which there is no other.

I don't know that I understand it well enough to agree or not.

It suffices to say that since the evolutionary force behind the unfolding of the relative world is not truly founded within the relative entities themselves, it follows that they cannot come about as they appear to (i.e., causing one another from the bottom up), but in a complementary manner.

But how do you say everything is perfect when many sentient beings suffer? The way I see it, things are sort of perfect and not perfect at the same time.

Jesus said that you reap what you sow, and therefore, if we sow wheat we will reap wheat, and it does serve us to lament the fact that we would have preferred barley. Neither can we say that it is not right that the wheat should have grown where we wanted barley, for wheat is what we planted, and tended, and nourished. In other words, the imperfection here is not in the garden, but in the gardener. The nutriment of suffering is the selfish act, and so long as we act so there will be suffering – the Absolute simply builds upon what we give it to work with: cause (ignorance), conditions (desire), effect (grasping) and recompense (suffering).

That seems a bit harsh as a standard. One cannot plan anything.

Don’t be disheartened, one can still plan a dinner party or a weekend trip to New York. It is when we set about to alter the world that we must be careful, for we do not wish to do any additional harm – to others or to ourselves. The awakened one does not answer to any code or precept, not even one’s own, for to do so would stand in the way of doing what is appropriate in a given situation. Neither do they have a plan to save the world (apart from trying to facilitate the awakening of others), for they see that all is unfolding as it must, given the cumulative effect that human selfishness is having upon the world.

[Iolaus]

That which has a purpose serves another - as its instrument, but Being is that than which there is no other.

But cannot Being serve itself?

In other words, the imperfection here is not in the garden, but in the gardener. The nutriment of suffering is the selfish act, and so long as we act so there will be suffering – the Absolute simply builds upon what we give it to work with: cause (ignorance), conditions (desire), effect (grasping) and recompense (suffering).

Yes, I agree with this, but I am not sure about calling it perfect.
Have you gotten into discussions with people about what is called the problem of evil? I find that I make no headway, even though things are clear to me, I simply cannot get the ideas across. You and I might not have exactly the same ideas on it, but this is one of the primary ones, i.e., that we are responsible for most of it, and should take responsibility. In fact, I think that taking responsibility is an important milestone in a person's spiritual development, before which they are somewhat hopeless.

It is when we set about to alter the world that we must be careful, for we do not wish to do any additional harm – to others or to ourselves.

A person might want to found or assist with a charitable organization, or even teach others. Not necessarily a full on plan to save the world. And the person might be less than perfect. It seems you are saying no one should bother trying to do anything good until they are fully enlightened. Unless a spontaneous action presents itself.

[Blair]

It seems you are saying no one should bother trying to do anything good until they are fully enlightened. Unless a spontaneous action presents itself.

That's what he has been saying for the last year or so. How many different ways do you need to hear it?

[Jehu]

But cannot Being serve itself?

To what end would that which is already perfect aspire? Being is what it is and cannot be otherwise, and so what need is there of a plan?

Yes, I agree with this, but I am not sure about calling it perfect.

By the term, “perfect”, I mean that which is complete and in need of nothing, faultless, and beyond improvement.

Have you gotten into discussions with people about what is called the problem of evil? I find that I make no headway, even though things are clear to me, I simply cannot get the ideas across. You and I might not have exactly the same ideas on it, but this is one of the primary ones, i.e., that we are responsible for most of it, and should take responsibility. In fact, I think that taking responsibility is an important milestone in a person's spiritual development, before which they are somewhat hopeless.

Indeed, we must take responsibility for our actions, for society is merely a projection of what we are, and so the ills of society are our ills.

A person might want to found or assist with a charitable organization, or even teach others. Not necessarily a full on plan to save the world. And the person might be less than perfect. It seems you are saying no one should bother trying to do anything good until they are fully enlightened. Unless a spontaneous action presents itself.

It is all a matter of motive or intent. Unfortunately, the ego-personality will go to great lengths to reinforce itself, especially where the opportunity to gain the recognition of others is concerned. Why even spirituality can become a means of enlarging one's ego, if one is not constantly vigilant. This is why, wherever possible, the awakened ones do their work in secret-so that there can be no alternative motive.

[Iolaus]

To what end would that which is already perfect aspire? Being is what it is and cannot be otherwise, and so what need is there of a plan?

It could aspire to create, to experience.

Why even spirituality can become a means of enlarging one's ego, if one is not constantly vigilant.

Yes, but I think in those cases the spirituality was a means to an end - ego gratification - from the beginning. One joins the religion with the intent to become a leader, a teacher or what-have-you.

Sincerity is the key.

[Jehu]

It could aspire to create, to experience.

Creativity and experience are the innate nature of Being, what need has it to aspire to them? Further, the indefinite and continuous evolution of objective knowledge (The Cosmos) does not alter Being in any way, for given that knowledge is the innate essence of Being, it can neither increase nor decrease – though all manner of things may come and go.

Yes, but I think in those cases the spirituality was a means to an end - ego gratification - from the beginning. One joins the religion with the intent to become a leader, a teacher or what-have-you.

Sincerity is the key.

Indeed, sincerity is the key, but it is important that you understand that where there is an end or goal, there is invariably an ego; and where there is an ego behind an action, suffering is inevitable. Spontaneous acts of compassion are the mark of an awakened one. In truth, there is but one activity that is the proper function of one who seeks enlightenment, and this is to recognize their own true nature.

[Iolaus]

OK, so then one must recognize one's own true nature...

[Jehu]

Good, then let us continue?

As I said before, the recompense of having followed the Right Path is tranquility (i.e., equanimity), but this is not itself enlightenment, though it is its primary cause.

Now, the form or appearance of tranquility is the “cessation of all emotional suffering (Dhuka)”, and by this, I mean that the mind is no longer perturbed by what it perceives, for it understands that all is unfolding as it must – given the presence of the appropriate causes and conditions. The essence of tranquility is “renunciation”, that is to say, a turning away from the pursuit of all worldly ends such as: wealth, power, prestige, and the like. The embodiment of this tranquility is “relinquishment”, which is the act of no longer identify with such things, that is to say, with our job, religion, political affiliation, knowledge, skills, etc. The potency underlying this tranquility is “release”, wherein such things no longer give rise to desire or grasping. And finally, the function of tranquility is “letting go”, that is to say, possessing complete equanimity with respect to whatever might befall you.

[Iolaus]

And how does such a person find their satisfactions in life?

[Jehu]

Tranquility is, as I said before, the recompense of one’s having followed the Right Path to its fruition.

In the Buddhist tradition such persons are called “Bodhisattvas”, which literally means “enlightening beings”: those who are in the process of awakening – and awakening others. The form of the enlightening being is “generosity”, for they give freely to everyone who is in need . Their essence is “virtue”, for they act always in the appropriate manner. Their embodiment is “forbearance”, for they epitomize self-control and tolerance. Their potency is “enthusiasm”, for their passion for the truth is unbounded. And their function is that state of at-one-ness which the ancients called “meditation”.

[Iolaus]

OK.

Now what?

[Jehu]

Now you must now learn how to master your own mind, for an undisciplined mind is like a dog which sets out to track down a deer, but ends up chasing after every rabbit that crosses it path. If you wish to experience the Absolute, you must first train your mind not to be drawn away by the relative; and especially by that class of things called “mentation”. This does not mean that the relative world disappears, it simply means that the mind is no longer distracted by its activities. In the meditative state, one’s awareness becomes divorced from the objects of perception, and this allows one’s ego-personality to meld back into its original state of at-one-ment – for perception is the embodiment of the ego-personality. However, I must warn you, there are dangers associated with the practice of meditation, and one should seek out a qualified teacher – but if one fully understands that all phenomena are illusory, then there is nothing to be feared.

[Iolaus]

Oh dear! You will never find a worse student than me. My mind is like a whole pack of beagles.

No wonder people run off to monasteries. How can you not allow your mind to be distracted by the relative when you have a job?

What are the dangers associated with meditation?

[Jehu]

Paying attention and being distracted are not the same thing; the dog who is disciplined to track a deer, is keenly aware of its pray, and will not be drawn away by something else. Consider how so many philosophical enquiries lose their way due to their being sidetracked by the preferences of the various participants; one wishing the discussion to go a particular way, and another, an entirely different direction; until the original purpose of the enquiry is utterly lost.

The awakened ones are not oblivious to the goings on around them, on the contrary, they are keenly aware. The reason for this is that they have trained themselves to stay in the moment – past and future being of no particular interest to them. Consequently, they are able to see precisely what is happening, and to act appropriately. Unfortunately, we humans beings are habitually off somewhere else – usually in the past or the future. In other words, we are dwelling in our imaginations; which we seem to prefer to the actual world.

Though it is not necessary to run off to monastery, it is important that you find a quiet place where you can practice, for just as one who is trying to break any sort of addiction, you must remove yourself, as much as possible, from the thing to which you are addicted. Later, having broken the power of addiction, you may then practice anywhere. Nevertheless, you should have a competent instructor, from whatever tradition you prefer, for they will help you to progress much more rapidly than you might practicing on your own.

As to the dangers of mediating, you must understand that the creative power of the mind is incredible , and the will of the ego-personality to preserve its identity, formidable. For this reason, only those who are firmly established in the cognizant nature of reality should undertake to meditate on their own, and even these may come to doubt their own sanity at times.

[Iolaus]

I am not sure what you are advising here. Surely many people are meditating with minimal instruction, but at any rate, I was not planning to go looking for an instructor.

Why would firmly understanding the cognizant nature of reality protect someone from feeling insane?

[Jehu]

I am not sure what you are advising here. Surely many people are meditating with minimal instruction, but at any rate, I was not planning to go looking for an instructor.

Yes, it is true that there are many who practice meditation without instruction, but I do not recommend it. Nevertheless, it is entirely your decision to make.

Why would firmly understanding the cognizant nature of reality protect someone from feeling insane?

So long as there remains any doubt whatsoever as to the true nature of our sensual experiences, the mind may overwhelm us with it illusions, and deter us from our goal through terror. As I said before, the creative power of the mind is not something to be taken lightly, and may be damaging to the psyche of those who are not prepared to confront its full force. This is why I recommend the tried and true method of integrating study, contemplation and meditation. With this method, as your powers of concentration develop, so too does your faith in the validity of the metaphysical view.

[Iolaus]

What sort of instructor did you get?

[Jehu]

My initial meditation training was in the Chan tradition, for its simplicity best suited my temperament, and it was their custom to point out the true nature of reality before meditation practice began in earnest. But this is not the path for everyone, and each must find that method which best suits them. However, once a method is chosen, one must stick with it, for one can get caught up in the tasting of the various traditions, and make little progress in their practice because of it.

Most importantly, you must not have any expectation of some profound experience, for the mind will create for you whatever you expect will happen; but this will not be a genuine experience of the Absolute - merely how you imagine it to be. Only by patience and perseverance will the remnants of ignorance be dispelled, and then, the Absolute will shine through of its own accord; like the sun as it burns away the morning fog.

[Iolaus]

I do not know if we are at an impasse or what.

[Jehu]

Yes, I suspect that we have reached an impasse, but this is one that you alone must overcome. If there is another method of obtaining atonement – aside from introspection, then I am not aware of it, nor apparently were any of the ancients. You say that you wish to experience your true nature, but you want to do so while still maintaining your status as the independent observer (i.e., an ego-personality), but this you cannot do, for as long as there is this dichotomy of observer and observed, all that you perceived will be mere illusion.

[Iolaus]

You are calling meditation introspection? What about contemplation?

You say that you wish to experience your true nature, but you want to do so while still maintaining your status as the independent observer (i.e., an ego-personality),

Oh, I don't know that I said that...of course since I am not enlightened and have not escaped my ego, it isn't really possible for me to quite understand what it might be like. One can only imagine, rather more inaccurately I suspect, an experience that one has not had. It is true that I have always had a niggling sense of something not being quite right with the linguistic expressions, such as 'no self'' which I suspect isn't quite true, but then, I am not in a position to really know.

I really did not think that all our conversation would lead in the end to your telling me to get a meditation guide! As if I would know where to find one.

[Jehu]

You are calling meditation introspection? What about contemplation?

Introspection is the process whereby we discover the illusory nature of our ego-personality (i.e., our bodies, our feelings, our perceptions, etc.), so that we might attain that state of right concentration which is call, “meditation”; contemplation being merely a tool in that process.

Oh, I don't know that I said that...of course since I am not enlightened and have not escaped my ego, it isn't really possible for me to quite understand what it might be like. One can only imagine, rather more inaccurately I suspect, an experience that one has not had. It is true that I have always had a niggling sense of something not being quite right with the linguistic expressions, such as 'no self'' which I suspect isn't quite true, but then, I am not in a position to really know.

The doctrine of “no-self” might be better expressed as “no-inherent-self”, that is to say, the relative being has no intrinsic reality. The whole purpose of the meditative state is to allow the non-inherent-self of each sentient being to recognize that it is none other than the inherent self of the whole of Being.

I really did not think that all our conversation would lead in the end to your telling me to get a meditation guide!

This is the wonder of a true enquiry, you never know where it will take you.

As if I would know where to find one.

There are a wide range of meditation centres, Buddhist, Taoist, Christen, it matters not which. Neither does it matter if your instructor is realized or not, for it is the physical and mental techniques that you need to be taught, not the metaphysics behind it. What’s more, even if there is no centre available, there are a number good instructional books available; which is better than attempting it on one’s own.

[Iolaus]

Jehu, people meditate, many, many of them, and I don't see them getting very enlightened. Doesn't seem very dangerous to me.

The doctrine of “no-self” might be better expressed as “no-inherent-self”, that is to say, the relative being has no intrinsic reality. The whole purpose of the meditative state is to allow the non-inherent-self of each sentient being to recognize that it is none other than the inherent self of the whole of Being.

Well now this I can accept and is in line with what I suspect, although the above is almost a contradictory statement. The relative being and the whole of Being are really one in the same.

This is the wonder of a true enquiry, you never know where it will take you.

Did you not anticipate this?

There are a wide range of meditation centres, Buddhist, Taoist, Christen, it matters not which. Neither does it matter if your instructor is realized or not, for it is the physical and mental techniques that you need to be taught, not the metaphysics behind it. What’s more, even if there is no centre available, there are a number good instructional books available; which is better than attempting it on one’s own.

Christian? For real? Taoist might be nice. Never heard of a Taoist meditation center. What about books. Any you recommend?