It's just not an issue for me. There are more important things. People who
on the question of who is enlightened and who isn't might ask why they
that, and why they categorize in other ways, and whether there are
It helps to know a
bit about fractals or recursion.
The investigating mind doesn't stop
only changes the subject. When knowing that most
feelings won't give rise to an analytical way of
looking at things, it
can't be a surprise that the
products of the disorderly mind grow faster
the means to put things in order again. Hence the
searching frenzy for isues like
yes/no enlightened. Having a book published and
getting quoted helps
a lot to remain established in
the expressed beliefs :-) Not to mention a
Years ago, one day while ensconced upon
my high tuffet, I was asked to vouchsafe to
one of my supplicating 'students', my own
personal definition of 'enlightenment'.
Thus, I said:
"Enlightenment... is knowing
how to talk".
And the following conversation ensued:
"But Gene, I already know how to talk... "
"Nonsense, graphhopper. You manage
to interpose word-symbols into a stream
of interpreted meaning which you call a
'conversation', but this is done solely for
the purpose of causing the extinction of
feelings which you experience as
disruptive to your desired state of mental
quiescence. If it were not for such feelings,
I doubt that you would ever utter a word."
"Uh...is that a Bad Thing, Gene?"
"Not at all. Or at least, let us hope that
is the case, for you share this peculiar
trait with the majority of humans.
"Just think... your most basic needs are
fulfilled by means of talking. You ask
for food when you are hungry. And now
you have discovered, deep within your
throbbing breast, what you have identified
as 'hunger for enlightenment', but please
understand, that this hunger is not really
for enlightenment, but verily instead, for
the extinction of a feeling."
"And what feeling do you refer to, Gene?"
"You have already confessed to feelings
of being 'unsettled' when you consider that
you are not enlightened, yes?"
"Uh-huh... yeah, I guess that is why I
"And you have assumed that it is
enlightenment itself, which will quell
these feelings of unsettlement, correct?"
"Yep. Isn't it obvious, that if I were
enlightened, I wouldn't have these
feelings... of fear and inadequacy?"
"My friend, you cannot 'cure apples
with oranges'. You are confusing,
overlapping, two real yet separate
things. You 'suffer' by means of your
own comparison between your
suffering state and the imagined
non-suffering state of 'enlightenment',
yet, you fail to see that it is the comparison
which you make, which is 'causing' your
painful feelings. And this leads me back
to your original question, and my
answer; the 'difference' between you,
the student, and me, the Enlightened
One, is only that I know how to talk.
And you don't."
"Gene... I am getting confused, but then
again, you say that I am already confused.
"Please tell me, the difference, qualitatively,
between how you talk, and how I talk".
"I will be most pleased to do so.
"You talk in order to cause the extinction
of feelings, but I talk, in order to give
rise to feelings."
"Uh... I don't get it".
"It's simple, really. Knowing
how to talk, enables the use
of speech as a creative power.
"The issue is 'creation vs reaction".
"You shoot the ducks as they
trundle by, and you are happy
only when they are all dead.
"I, on the other hand, send
special kinds of ducks, which
are actually quite bulletproof.
"Your frustration arises, when
your bullets bounce off of my
ducks. I arouse in you, by talking,
feelings which you are not
comfortable with. And the issue
really is, that you are not comfortable
with any feelings, whatsoever.
It is as simple as that."
"So it seems, Gene, that what is
going on, is that I am not allowing
myself to have feelings. And that
I prefer a blank field, duckless as
it were, for some reason."
"Correct. It is your job to learn to
talk. It is your job to give rise to
ducks which delight you, and by
extension, others also. When you
find yourself entertaining large
flocks of delightful ducks, without
the impulse to blast them into a
cloud of bloody feathers, you will
"So what you are saying, Gene, is
that there is a huge difference
between 'coping' and 'creating'?"
"Yes! Acting in reaction is simply
imposing a norm, and as you know
from your own experience, it is
an entirely unpleasant experience,
especially if it is you, who is being
imposed upon by an 'other' who
is attempting to 'edit' you, for the
purpose of quenching their own
"Acting in creation, encompasses
the entire range of possibilities
inherent in any relationship, and
we see this internally, and when
we are with others. The so-called
'enlightened' person is simply one
who is unremittingly creative, and
expresses this by their way of
"Any challenge we experience,
will be successfully overcome,
only if we are deliberately willing
to experience the full range of
feelings, which arise in reaction.
"It is the automatic reaction to
'pain' of feeling, which triggers
the blasting of ducks. And this
is the usual way for humans.
"It is normal to experience pain,
to suffer; but it is not at all
mandatory to act in destructive
ways, in order to quench such
feelings. In a sense, such feelings
are our only compass and guide
to what is really happening. It is
a great tragedy that humans do
not even notice their own feelings,
as being literally a majority
of what is intelligence.
"The collective human psyche
needs an overhaul, in regards
to how feelings are evaluated,
judged, and dealt with. Anyone
who cannot accomplish the
move from 'coping' to 'abiding
with', is on the road to extinction.
And that road is quite congested,
and it is called 'the highway of
"And I hope that you understand,
that what I am talking about, is
something that each human has
to do for themselves. I can set up
the ducks, but each person has
to understand, eventually, that
the entire flock is their responsibility.
As long as the gun-in-hand is
an option, the shooting will continue,
and if there is one dead duck, the
entire flock is in jeopardy...
"Somebody once said, that until
'all sentient Beings' are safe,
no sentient Being is safe.
"No sentient Being, who persists
in censoring hir own feelings,
is safe; such a one, by censoring
hir own feelings, deprives
hirself of half of hir own potential
"Knowing how to talk, is the ability
to set up bulletproof ducks."
My time is eternity ... eternity my friend. I ... I don't think the world
knows what to make of me now, let alone later [laughter] No ... for a time, as
of now, the world will love me ... just a little. Toward the latter period of my
life, the world will disregard me, even hate me, wrongly ofcourse, and because
of me, hate all of you, because we were right! And because Truth is Truth. After
I am gone, the world will wonder about me, trying to make sense of me, to no
avail [laughter] The new world will proclaim me, the old will stubbornly reject
me and eventually pass away because they missed me and sought to destroy me, not
knowing me when I came before them. After that time, 'new mankind' will forget
me, having found the fruit of my designs. At that time, my work will be done. On
that day, I will be everywhere around them and laughing my head off in
To another question Master said : The best is heart-to-heart
and heart-to-heart hearing . That is the best upadesa.
D. Is not guidance from Guru necessary ?
Maharshi. Are you apart from Guru ?
D. Is proximity helpful ?
M. Do you mean physical proximity ? What is the good of it ?
The mind alone matters . The mind must be
from Talks , InnerDirections Publishing , page 113