Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

93601/01/02 Tuesday

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    Jan 3, 2002
      -Your Ego is Your Troubleshooter - Alan Watts

      Only we've got this little partial view. We've got the idea that 'No, I'm something IN this body.' The ego. That's a joke. The ego is nothing other than the focus of conscious attention. It's like the radar on a ship. The radar on a ship is a troubleshooter. Is there anything in the way? And conscious attention is a designed function of the brain to scan the environment, like a radar does, and note for any trouble making changes. But if you identify yourself with your troubleshooter, then naturally you define yourself as being in a perpetual state of anxiety. And the moment we cease to identify with the ego and become aware that we are the whole organism, we realize first thing how harmonious it all is. Because your organism is a miracle of harmony. All these things functioning together. Even those creatures that are fighting each other in the blood stream and eating each other up. If they weren't doing that, you wouldn't be healthy.

      Extract from: Alan Watts: The Nature Of Consciousness

      [There are several more good, but lengthy excerpts from Watts, please see the archives to read more of them.]

      Hi Gene,

      G> So, the focus of the seeker 'should be' upon the nature of
      G> emptiness itself, rather than upon the many, many examples
      G> of how things can go wrong in the world-dream, and the
      G> numerous and ultimately, misleading examples of remedies
      G> based upon world-dream perceptions.

      Any focus would be to assume that the answer to the 'problem' would
      lie 'somewhere'. Problems of 'wholeness' may be badly defined
      problems, which is to say that in talking about 'totality' or
      'emptiness' there is a particularization process which makes such 'things'
      part of the problem again.

      Problems must be 'particular', or 'partial'. The question itself must
      always be partial, thus the answer. 'Self' is a constant problem, a
      constant challenge. It would seem to have no answer apart from the
      dissolution of the question.

      Total emptiness would be equivalent to total fullness. So what is 'it'
      that is full or empty? is Consciousness a container? Is it possible to
      distinguish the container from the contained? The container is the
      contained. Dualistically this makes no sense, but 'totality' is

      To be simple, where then is the problem? Our problem is self created.
      Exit 'self' stage left.

      no perception is more valid than any other
      what is going on here
      solutions that are not solutions
      for a problem that is not a problem

      who is on a voyage of discovery
      of how it is said

      perception perceiving perception perceiving emptiness what is

      emptiness what is

      the thick of things

      for what disease is this the cure

      the small medium is at large

      Happy new year



      Thank you, Andrew.

      And well-stated, the perception
      of the paradox operative in
      someone's moment.

      My question (which I assume
      to be open-ended and perhaps
      unanswerable, except perhaps
      provisionally) is this:

      When, if ever, is it good, or even
      permissible, to 'pretend' to be
      at the (perceived) level of another's

      I ask, because while I myself
      am quite comfortable in and as
      formless emptiness (actually
      my preferred 'state'), there is a
      certain line of reasoning which
      I understand to be usable to
      those who have grasped the
      ladder, yet have not yet committed
      to the climb... so to speak.

      It is of course possible to
      obviate the entire journey, to
      find oneself in the overall
      context of 'objective experience'
      in a quite literal way, and to
      thus dispose of the ladder,
      to drop the skif used to traverse
      the divide, to 'go beyond'
      with or without definition or
      explanation, etc etc.

      Nonetheless, the issue of
      'offering guidance' remains,
      especially in a forum such
      as this.

      Certainly there is great value
      in speaking plainly 'from where
      one is coming from', unabashedly
      leaving any chips where they may
      fall. My question as to the
      propriety of a way of speaking, does
      not imply otherwise.

      And we may disqualify the very
      means of communicating, as
      an example of the futility of
      'mere words'. Yet, words have
      exercised their power in many
      ways, both agreeable and
      disagreeable. We may use them
      as we wish.

      To that end, suggestions of direction
      or 'guidance' may be exampled or
      phrased, and are better placed
      deliberately into the context which
      is intended (by the speaker) as the
      link between each rung of said ladder.

      Yes, the saying of the doctrine of the
      completion of the task that has no
      beginning, undoubtably has value,
      because such statements in themselves
      reveal the gap in the understanding
      of a hypothetical reader, but is there not
      a place for the assembly of the structure
      which will eventually disappear, when
      any usefulness that it once may have
      had, is finished?

      While I can make no claim to
      'enlightenment' or to be a 'teacher'
      of 'it', I do feel that there is (and should be)
      room for such expressions, which for
      the reader, could (if used receptively)
      lead to understanding by way of
      explanation, rather than action by
      way of directive.


      ==Gene Poole==

      Communication is not transmission of information.
      As human beings we are closed systems
      continuously making information,
      making ourselves, in forming.
      Communication is an interactive display of data.
      The other is an interactive display of data.
      So this play of pattern matching goes on
      as an invitation to dance,
      or a response to an invitation
      shape shifting dance shamanic
      Permissible? Compulsary?
      A matter of the heart.
      Ah the heart!



      Hey, it seems to be 2002...

      A future of possibilities

      Here is a link.


      Scientists speculate that the universe is not only expanding,
      but that it is in fact, accelerating! Read all about it in this long
      and amusing article.

      Why the NYT article may be of interest to 'us':

      As you may know, 'space' is one of my favorite studies.
      There has been talk of 'space migration', or of moving
      people into space colonies, and of  colonizing other

      The NYT article quotes scientists as saying that 'life may be
      doomed' if the universe is expanding at an accelerating

      I recently wrote that it is possible to perceive 'other than
      the world dream'. Jerry has written about the 'interval'; now,
      science states that 'space' is actually not empty, but may
      be 'full of mysterious dark matter' (dark because we
      cannot see it).

      Life is not doomed if we take the option of migrating into
      'space', no in space-ships, but to learn to live here with
      full perception, everything seen, and then step into
      the 'interval' or 'emptiness', leaving behind dependence
      on the physical universe.

      The physical universe 'may be' an incubator, and
      school, to prepare 'the worthy' for expansion into
      'space'. Nonduality 'may be' the fulcrum-point of this
      possible expansion, acting as a method of parsing
      layers of perception.

      The issue of 'enlightenment' has been with us for
      as long as we can remember. It may be that the actual
      'purpose' of enlightenment is to prepare us for our
      next evolutionary step, deliberate and bodiless
      conscious awareness.

      The Holy Scriptures of antiquity seem to indicate the
      actuality of versions of 'heaven', and propose methods
      of purification of the 'soul' to enable a person to enter
      the 'afterlife'. It is possible that such scriptural teachings
      are actually 'echoes from the future', information
      embedded in the holomatrix of the universe.

      Our (actual or latent) abilities to perceive 'higher dimensions'
      could be our means to understand and navigate in
      this space of emptiness; and our ability to co-exist and
      cooperate, may also be a key factor in this possible

      It seems that certain 'Masters' have succeeded in
      'going beyond' in this literal sense, which would itself
      indicate that the possible future is now.

      ==Gene Poole==