Click here to go to the next issue.

Thursday, July 27


GENE POOLE

Reinranting still, again

How does one reincarnate in timelessness? For that matter,
how does one incarnate in timelessness?

Conventional identity, that old pattern, is what stands in
place of what is always already 'here'.

It is conventional for conventional identity to ask about
identity other than conventional identity.

In that old pattern of convention, identity classifies
information according to broad classes or categories. The
broadest of these classes is 'time'. Naturally,
conventional identity shelves gathered data (memory) in
bins labeled 'past, present' and future'. I say 'naturally'
because it seems quite natural to 'have a past' and to
'have a future', so much so that people are fond of saying
"there is only 'now'".

For conventional identity, 'now' is a difference which
arises only in comparison to past and future. For the
timeless, there is no 'now'; for the timeless, the
information which is labeled by conventional identity
categorically as 'past, present, and future', still exists
as information, but is labeled differently.

'Simultaneous' is also a time-based contrast, but comes
close to timelessness, closer to timelessness than a model
of reality which is a linear progression of interdependent
events, labeled as past, present, and future. Inevitable
simultaneity, or better, unstoppable simultaneity, certain
simultaneity, or a description of events as all the same
event, is even better.

All events are the same event, thus there are no separate
events; with no separate events, there is no difference;
thus, 'nothing ever happens'.

Consider conventional ideas about reincarnation in light of
simultaneity. In this model, there is not a linear
progression of lives, but instead, a present and permanent
current bloom of all of what is. In this model, all lives
occur simultaneously. The question is then, why do we
insist on having one life at a time? If there is doubt that
we insist on having one life at a time, look at the current
state of assumption concerning identity; many individual
synthetic identities long to merge, but are incompatible,
kept separate by the divide of language.

The answer to this question is this; conventional identity
is 'mine', and I am separate from all other lives. I am
self and not other. I am me and you are you; I know things
and do things which you do not know and do not do. I am a
unique individual; I was born and I will die, and in the
meantime, all of you others are a royal pain in the ass. I
am dependent upon you to give me monetary rewards for
accomplishing tasks which I would rather not do, but do for
the money. I depend upon you to validate my 'humanness', to
have empathy for me, to respect me, and to communicate with
me. These are all expectations of conventional identity,
and woven into these expectations is the classification of
time as past, present, and future. Perhaps it could be
said, that it is human awareness of time, and the ability
to classify time, and to classify information according to
time, which has convinced us that we have a sort of mastery
of ourselves, and by extension, of the universe in which we
live. Is one willing to give all of this up, simply to know
timelessness?

Conventional identity is very allergic to timelessness; in
fact, a prolonged exposure to timelessness will inevitably
produce the effect of 'anaphylaxis', to a fatal degree,
leaving nothing of conventional identity, but the (non
time-based) classified information of 'what is'; with the
expiration of the librarian, the books remain. Timeless is
not mortal, being outside of time, being undeceived by
convention, and not entertaining expectation of time or its
products. It is all here right now, not to be found later,
and not to be missed; it is also nowhere, because now, only
what is happening is happening, a constant mutation, and
the danger is to track the changes on the basis of time,
rather than intention.

One may use the phrase 'sentient Being' to refer to
timeless awareness, aware of beginningless (not even a
word!) and endless, non-time based perception, as being
that which is the stage upon which what is, is happening, a
continual blooming of one thing, and it is awareness itself
which is the organic substrate in which all of this blooms,
and it is the bloom. How dare we focus on one petal, when
there is this incredible flower to consider and to
appreciate?

Awareness speaks simply as what is, yet, conventional
identity invents and uses language to go 'what is' one
better, lying continually about time, and suffering the
torments of self-castration, as it uses language to
delineate, limit, and then falsely 'explain' what is
happening, all the while having to speak very loudly in
order to drown out the incredible, total-bandwidth
expression of what is, as the shout, whisper, and silence
of awareness itself. Awareness naturally organizes its
products as its own expression, yet conventional identity
defines the apparent universe as partly alive and partly
nonliving and partly dead, all according to time. Ideas
about reincarnation emanate from the assumption of time,
and from nowhere else. Those ideas are nothing but the
naturally secreted glue which holds the barnacle to the
rock against the violence of the pounding tides; it is the
nature of the barnacle to do this, to cope with predictable
events, to insure survival.

Of course, free-swimming fish do not suffer from the needs
of the barnacle; they have entirely different mechanisms
for coping, and survive glueless, riding the tides, moving
with the currents. This is how timeless Being considers
human dilemma of time-bound consciousness; conventional
identity secures to 'stationary objects' and needs more
than anything, to have at least one 'real thing' by which
to 'know the reality of all other things'. For many humans,
this 'one real thing' is called 'God'; God is considered to
be the one reality, all other being transient or even
illusory. Upon this rock of certainty is thus built
language, which like a superb net, ensconces not only the
fish upon which it is cast, but also the unwitting
fisherman who casts it. Caught in his own net, he is
limited by its confines; yes, he has fish to eat, but he is
in the position of the barnacle, stuck in the 'present' and
able only to fantasize other times and spaces. Like a dunce
facing the corner, he delimits his reality with force when
deemed necessary, scourging all non-barnacle genes from the
pool, and keeping pure the language-bound, time-bound
vision.

Speaking of God, if we understand God, we know that God
neither exists nor non-exists; as the model of timeless
awareness, as the One True Self, God is the foundation upon
which all barnacles are glued, and is the tides which
batter them, and the fish which eat them, and the ocean in
which the fish swim, netted by the self-netting fishermen,
those deaf and blind tool-users, who habitually cut
themselves into bait which attracts calamity, trolling as
they do for the 'big catch' of understanding, trapped of
course in their own sacred limiting-words. The Urth is
flat; stay with the conventional identity, for over the
edge, is the void, inhabited by unimaginable monsters,
which of course are purely imaginary.

Conventional identity is incarnate, and certainly
reincarnates; of this there is no doubt. It takes great
pains, quite literally, to replicate itself, and to
enshrine itself in temples defined as timeless. Like the
pyramids of Egypt, conventional identity is a shrine to
itself, fooling itself that it is immortal, thus inventing
myths of immortality which star various versions of
conventional identity.

So far, the discussion has been around the topic of
'realization', and has ignored for the most part, the
possibility that space itself is aware and intelligent; and
yes, immortal; for when is there no space, though invisible
it may be? Awareness is this space of immortality, giving
birth to all objects, and also being their grave.

Identity incarnates in this awareness, and like the
ocean-born fish, is unaware of the natural amniotic fluid
which is awareness. Stalked by self-generated calamity,
humans invent ideas of 'Karma', which are expressed in the
same language which, like the sharp bait-knife, divides one
into many, and this knife is carried with pride, always at
the ready, the perfectly imperfect tool. Based upon the
assumption that there is one verifiable thing, all other
things, imagined or imagined not to be imagined, are thus
cut from the same formless jelly, and set upon the table as
suitable food for growth. Until humans see the jelly that
they are, they are unable to simply assimilate nothing;
nothing is another allergen, the void of everything, which
is itself an invalidation of conventional identity; nothing
is unimaginable.

Living space is nothing, awareness is nothing, and nothing
incarnates as identity; thus, nothing is what reincarnates,
but the allergy to nothing makes something from nothing,
and also language to classify it. Like the body expresses
boils in allergy, so identity is the expression of
something in nothing. Clinging to the rock of 'reality',
adhering against death, silly superstition supercedes
superb Self, describing what is vast in terms scaled to a
ruler of confusion, and the most confused measure is that
of time, the vast net of misunderstanding cast upon what is
assumed to be seen.

Clinging to the beautiful blossoms of spring, afraid to go
into that long night of summer, lest a petal should fall,
humans preserve unto embalming, the compilation of memories
which obscure the clear view of space. These objects,
infused with life only in the imagination of the
puppet-master, dance to the script of a shared dream,
playing dolls under the direct gaze of God. Chief among the
games of this worldly script, is the routine of 'seeking
God or true knowledge of God'; socially-reinforced
ignorance of God validates this seeking, but each seeker
feels the gaze upon Hir back; otherwise, this game would
expire of sheer boredom.

No puppet has ever become enlightened; enlightenment is the
awakening of the puppet-master. People define 'you' as this
non-enlightened puppet, agitating to educate you, to
enlighten you, to make you better, to make you the best of
all puppets, just like your parents agitated to make you
'good'. No puppet can be 'good' or 'bad' except in the
bizarre consensus dream-world of the doll-game. It is
identification with and as the puppet which is the
anesthesia of the puppet-master; how to get sober, as long
as the game is to continue until 'everyone gets it right'?
Certain drunks may assume that the cure for drunkenness is
alcohol; similarly, certain people may assume that the cure
for identification as being a puppet, is to work to perfect
the doll-play. Slogging about in the dream, picking up
clues to how the dream can be ended and reality finally
begun, fleeing the annoying bell of the alarm-clock of
suffering, all the while picking up and reattaching fallen
body-parts, the puppet moves only as the master dictates.
But the master, drunk upon game-bound success, hurls the
doll ever more skillfully into perfecting the game, slyly
positioning for the hinted rewards.

Doll contests are no match for this missive from awareness;
flashing diamond sharp cutter effortlessly cuts strings,
thus breaking feedback loop between master and puppet. At
this moment, master is suddenly sober, but as addict, must
patch those severed threads which lead to created identity,
thus to continue chosen trance-state. Focusing right on
through threatened breakup of familiar reality-patterns,
holding firm while sensorium wavers, reapplying the
familiar to the unknown, master reinitializes puppet,
throwing away timeless and conventionally meaningless
impressions, to continue on to mastery of puppet-hood. A
doll judged by other dolls, shutting out the true voices
which would give the lie to the entire game, attached to
world-dream success, master continues on, stoned out of Hir
mind by the fantastic events of the imaginary, always
declining credit for that authorship.

DAVE (MANCHINE)

Beautiful piece Gene. While it lends a great perspective as
to the how or why, it also does great justice in the
understanding of nothing.

It is sensed that there is a truth behind this game. I AM
perhaps touches that truth, but ever so distantly. Getting
to " " AM is closer, but that too is a sense, even when
empty consciousness is achieved. This simultaniety in
living space permits transposing empty and full
consciousness such that a sense of awareness materializes.
So where awareness is the possible "reason" for filling
consciousness, it is full consciousness that leads to
awareness... timelessly speaking. Such a transposition
permits a "living interface", keeping in mind that it is an
arbitrary interface. Greater meaning however is given to
"living" space.

GREG GOODE

Hi Gene-ji and Dave,

I like this! This view of simultaneity is actually taught
as one of the more abstract teachings in advaita vedanta.
The teaching is that all of phenomenality is actually dying
and being re-instantiated at every moment. In that moment,
all lives are parallel and simultaneous as in a flash.
There is no succession of anything, because the flash is of
zero (0) duration.

Actually the present moment comes complete with its own
built-in seeming pointers to a past and a future. Only
"seeming" -- because the pointers themselves as well as
their targets are inseparable from the present flash. So
there's no evidence that the pointers actually ever refer
to anything outside the moment. The present flash cannot
truly refer to another flash.

DAVID HODGES

Gene, I never thought you could outdo yourself but in this
case you have. Your message itself is a "missive from
awareness" which "effortlessly cuts strings". The master
who writes through YOU, truly stoned out of Hir mind to pop
such puppety poppety dreams through your keyboard to we
meat-puppets, this Master obviously is ecstatically
effortlessly writing for the sheer joy of it, and it is
quite an amazing performance to be able to attend.

DAN BERKOW

Dear Gene,

You raised several worthy points here - gracias. *And* all
of the points were the "apparent unfolding" of That which
might be termed "unstoppable simultaneity" or, perhaps,
"unopposed synchronicity", which must not even have
"apparent unfolding" (and only seems to have this when we
believe ourselves to be commenting upon it).

As you noted, there is One Event, sans subevents, hence no
"real unfolding" is possible, which might be termed, as in
your piece, "nothing happens," or could be stated as "there
can be no such thing as a discussion about whether
something happens or doesn't happens."

As there is One Event, it can never be, has never been
commented upon.

When you ask: Is one willing to give all of this up, simply
to know timelessness?

it only sounds like you are commenting upon, and raising a
question about a subevent.

the question is a resounding reverberation in
soundlessness, a tidal wave of nothing, a mighty echo of
the snuffing out of a candle that appeared in a dream.

or something like that ;-)

(not really)
____________________________________________________________________________

DANIEL HELLER, MATTHEW FILES

DANIEL: Does the list on this site, of teachers or people
you can contact, purport to offer names of those who are
fully "liberated/awakened/realized" or whatever other term
you prefer?

MATTHEW: well daniel, this list and others have lots of
names of teachers. Their "status" is purely subjective. I
particularly like "Sarlos hum-drum-guru -ratings", because
he rates everyone so low. Though there are a select few i
think he should bump up a few notches. Everyone has their
own opinion of who is at what level. Personally, i look
around at the scene today and i couldn't imagine having to
find a "real one" out of that mess. I consider my self
fortunate that i never had to do that search and just sort
of stumbled into my guru quite by accident not even knowing
i was looking for one, some 23 years ago. To many he is a
fraud, charlatan, liar, a fool, or totally deluded. To me
is the One with no second. So like i said, it's totally
subjective. Happy hunting!

DANIEL: I have long been under the impression that
receiving the full understanding was somewhat rare, perhaps
extremely rare. Now, surfing some sites such as NDS and
realization.org, I'm wondering if I've misunderstood.

MATTHEW: I think you understand just fine.i think i'm in
the minority on this one around these parts but i agree
with you. The way people talk you would think that the
whole of humanity is just waking up left and right. What a
crock! Wouldn't it be so nice and easy if there was a way
of testing for enlightenment. Like a ph test or something.
So that with anyone who claimed enlightenment, we could
just test them and if they failed or passed then that
proved it for sure. Oh, we already do have that in each of
our own little minds, with our own special criteria. Ah but
is it accurate? hmmmmm good question.

GREG GOODE

Welcome Dan! (Dan Heller's a buddy from NYC, new to this
list).
There are a couple of things to keep in mind...

-- there are many different definitions of enlightenment,
some definitions are restrictive and exclusive, some are
inclusive, some definitions make sense, some make no sense;
some definitions are intentionally used only as expedient
means or teaching devices only, and aren't meant to be
taken as true.

-- one can't ignore the personal and political aspects of
this stuff. E.g., in some cases there might be plain old
selfish personal motives for perpetrating a notion of
enlightenment that includes just me and a tiny handful of
others!

-- choose a definition, any definition. One must *still* be
careful: not all those who have famous celebrity status fit
the characteristics. And not all those who fit the
characteristics have famous celebrity status.

Let 'er rip!!

(editor's note: there should be more on this topic in the
next highlights)
___________________________________________________________________________

MELODY ANDERSON

JERRY: In the name of functioning optimally in the world,
the one with the Absolute perspective can still identify
the false self and say, Hey, this false self is a drag, and
proceed to improve. That's merely work, like looking after
a garden in a backyard. However, it really doesn't matter
if the yard is overgrown and full of poisonous plants, or
cultivated.

MELODY: I enjoyed your garden metaphor, Jerry.

To continue this metaphor with some of my own observations
this morning:

A 'garden' has no conscious motivation to feed someone, or
to be a thing of beauty, it doesn't care if the yard is
overgrown and filled with poison....or whether it is
cultivated.

It does seem to, however, have a 'motivation' towards
living. Each and every plant in the garden will stretch and
search for food and light....sometimes 'overshadowing'
others (and thur reducing their chances of
living)....sometimes 'drinking' more than its 'fair' share
of nourishment.

With this picture in my mind, I began thinking:

If the plants in a garden carried the desire to be
compassionate, how would they behave differently?

I wonder if their acts of 'compassion' would begin at
home....in that the older, more established plants might
begin to share more with the up 'starts'.....

maybe develop a consciousness of 'everyone should be fed'
and given the same chance to grow.

The question then arises

what if ...'in their compassion'... they no longer were
capable of bearing fruit? What if, in their zest to 'share
light' they stopped drinking in enough for themselves to
continue growing?

I'm reminded now of Osho's "bamboo" metaphor...the one
where he suggests we empty ourselves of all intention
(including compassion) and simply allow God to sing thru
us.

He seems to be suggesting (weaving his thought into this
metaphor) that what may look like an act of of uncaring
self-interest (when one plant overshadows another, or grabs
all the water for himself) might be Existence's perfect
song.

This leads me to wonder....concerning compassion:

Do me best serve God by 'cultivating' a heart of
compassion? Do we best serve ourselves? And how do we know
what's 'best'?

The moment we ask such a question....doesn't it show us
that we are NOT in the position to know? Doesn't it show us
that we are not at that moment being AS a 'hollow bamboo'?

One of my biggest struggles of all is in giving up this
notion of 'having a Christian heart' ....of being a helper
or healer....of being my bothers' keeper. And yet, my
observations (of my self and others) show me that this
'compassionate' intent can not only CREATE considerable
sorrow and suffering,

it is the fastest way for this 'bamboo' to become full of
itself.

It makes me wonder if this is not the challenge for AC, and
many others.

____________________________________________________________________

top of page