Why Lazarus Laughed

Why Lazarus Laughed 1. Why Lazarus Laughed

Why Lazarus Laughed Mei Wu Wei This book was produced in EPUB format by the Internet Archive. The book pages were scanned and converted to EPUB format automatically. This process relies on optical character recognition, and is somewhat susceptible to errors. The book may not offer the correct reading sequence, and there may be weird characters, nonwords, and incorrect guesses at structure. Some page numbers and headers or footers may remain from the scanned page. The process which identifies images might have found stray marks on the page which are not actually images from the book. The hidden page numbering which may be available to your ereader corresponds to the numbered pages in the print edition, but is not an exact match; page numbers will increment at the same rate as the corresponding print edition, but we may have started numbering before the print book's visible page numbers. The Internet Archive is working to improve the scanning process and resulting books, but in the meantime, we hope that this book will be useful to you. The Internet Archive was founded in 1996 to build an Internet library and to promote universal access to all knowledge. The Archive's purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. The Internet Archive includes texts, audio, moving images, and software as well as archived web pages, and provides specialized services for information access for the blind and other persons with disabilities. Created with abbyy2epub (v.1.7.0) By the same Author FINGERS POINTING TOWARDS THE MOONRtJlecUons of a Pilgrim on the q)i Fast published ig6oby RoutUdge & Kegan Paul LtdBroadway House^ Carter Lane, EC4Made and printed in Great Britainby Wtlltam Clowes & Sons LtdLondon and Beccles © Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd ig6oPlo part of this book be reproduced in anyform without permission fromthe publisher, except for the quotationof brief passages in criticism livingShould Be Perpetual and UniversalBenediction. V

Titles of books are sometimes indications only. Herefor instance, there is not really any doctrine, but justreflections of the moon m a puddle. And quite certainlythere is no teacher. Essential understanding, however,might have found its way into occasional pages—whether understood or not by the transmitter is besidethe point. Under the title of this book only three religions arecited, those chat are formally non-dualist. But thisapparent limitation does not imply that such is not alsothe essential ‘doctrine* of the three Semitic faiths,Judaism, Qiristianity and Islam, which are formallydualist, and whose esoteric aspects are Kabala, Gnosisand Sufism. In Christianity the dualism of Creator and created isresolved in what is implied by Godhead, but this is notdeveloped in the theology, moreover the recordedwords of Jesus are few and are chiefly addressed to thesimple-minded, and the esoteric doctrine was cast outby the council of Constantinople in a.d. j j 3. Thereforethe Christian evidence chiefly resides in Gnosticrecords that are little known, in the early Fathers, andin sages and samts sudi as Meister Eckhart and St. Johnof the Cross, who were obliged by the dogmas of theChurch to cloak the non-dualism which is implicit invi their realisation of the truth For this reason it isunpractical to use Christian evidence in such acollection of observations as thisIt seems unlikely that aojrthmg but the superficialteachmg of Jesus, that which he taught m parables *sothat they should not understand’, has been available tothe ‘Christian* pubhc since the excommunication ofOrigen m a d 553, three hundred years after he wrotehis works However, m view of the tidal wave of interest mmetaphysics which reveals a considerable percentageof modern man as being driven to seek the truth concerning himself and the univcne, it seems mevitablethat the day will arrive when the doctrmes of lesousChristos will once mote be revealed to mankindI have not mentioned Tao^ That which is under-stood does not need statement The doctrine of Tao isan imphat rather than an expbat doctrme Thedoctrine of Tao is itself the essential doctrine Thishttle book rmght have been called Tao—were not sucha title presumptuous In general, capital letters ate used when the termimpUes that which is unique When the same word iswritten with a lower case letter multiphcity is imphed

THE TITLE OF THIS BOOK their reahsation of the truth For this reason it isunpractical to use Ohristian evidence in such acoUection of observations as thisIt seems unhkely that anything but the superfiaalteachmg of Jesus, Aat whiA he taught in parables *sothat they should not understand’, has been available tothe ‘Qiristian* pubhc since the excommunication ofOrigen m A d j 5 3, three hundred years after he wrotehis works However, m view of the tidal wave of interest inmetaphysics which reveals a considerable percentageof modern man as being driven to seek the truth conccrning himself and the universe, it seems inevitablethat the day will arrive when the doctrmes of lesousQirutos will once mote be revealed to mankmdI have not mentioned Tao^ That which is understood does not need statement The doctrme of Tao isan imphcit rather than an cxphat doctrme Thedoctrme of Tao is itself the essential doctrme Thishttle book might have been called Tao—^were not sucha title presumptuous In general, capital letters are used when the termimplies that which is umque When the same word iswritten with a lower case letter multiphcity is imphed vu This work, like Ftakers Pointing Too arils theMoon, IS a senes of obscr\ations on the path of apilgrim, and represents a continual development ofthe intuitions and ideas so experienced Therefore at no point is a final statement of doctrineto be sought, which would indeed be dogma, andwhich this could never be In this process later observations correct, supple-ment and achieve carber ones, perhaps contradictthem in certain details Nowhere is absolute truth tobe expected Nowhere is anyone asked to bebeveNowhere is there finabty to be found A pilgrim shares the fruit he has gathered by thewayside—that is all It may be observed, even perhaps objected, thatthis later volume is increasingly concerned with two orthree themes only The inference should be clear as the wayfarerproceeds, the broad base of the mountain is left behind,the path narrows and the multitudinous objects ofapparent interest that abound at the lower levels mergeinto a few essential ones that ultimately wiU becomeone only—as may be observed in the concentratedteaching of those who arrived at the summit, such asHuang Po, Padma Sarabhava and the Maharshi Were viu PREFACE It not so even here the work could hardly be genuineor that httle it professes to be.

Thereafter there are no further problems, forsubsidiary ones are derivative, and ultimately there isnothing forther to be said. All that remams is the catalystic understanding ofthat ultimate problem that the long wayfarmg hasrevealed. W.W.W. The normal occidental, brought up m quasi-absolute materialism, whose religion—in so far as hehas any—is dualistic (which comports the oppositionof spirit and matter, of God and man), usually believesthat nothing exists except that which his senses canperceive, i.c. in a universe confined within thelimitations of his sensorial apparatus. Such a mancannot possibly comprehend the reality expounded bythe Sages, without a complete reversal of aU his beliefs,a total revaluation of all lus values. Such a transformadoo is only possible to a few, andit cannot reasonably occur within a period less than aconsiderable number of years. Even so it requires apowerful urge from the plane of reality, which fewexperience, and an intellectual apparatus of an orderthat is sparsely distributed in any society. Moreover no orgamsed system of re-education tothat end exists in the West, and years are apt to passbefore such a man even begins to realise that what hebebeves to be reabty is phenomenal, and that what hebebeves to be phenomenal may be Reabty. And by then he has found out that the phenomenaluniverse appears to exist precisely because his sen-sorial apparatus has interpreted reabty in that form,and IS in fact a product of mind, X PROLEGOMENON And that is not where the journey ends, but theterminus from which the traveller sets forth, for, inorder that mtuition may penetrate effectively, it needsa mind that is in a condition to interpret it. 1. REVALUATION OP VALUES, 1: TllREL EALSE VALUES ^ 2. BUDDAS FOR BURNING 5 3. MAN IS A RIVER 5 4. PORTRAIT OF A GENTLEMAN 6 J, LIVING BACKWARDS 7 6. POLICEMEN DISGUISING THEMSELVES AS THIEVES IN ORDER TO CATCHTHEMSELVES 9 ARMCHAIR TRAVELLING 7. LE FANTOCIIE 1° 8. FREE-WILL VERSUS DETERMINISM II 9. FREE-WILL, 2 *3 FREE-WILL, 5 10. FREEDOM, I 14 FREEDOM, 2 11. DEBRIS 16 12. TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK 18 POACHED EGGS (ALL OF US) 13. GROUP EGOISM 2° 14. TRAVAIL 22

DREAM FIGURES. *AS BELOW , . 15. THE MAN IN THE MOON 24 16. YOU MUST DIG DEEP TO BURY YOUR SHADOW 23 17. THE REASON ZJ Sli 18. DEFINITIONS 19. THE GREAT JOKE 20. DEFINITIONS OF NON-ATTACHMENT 21. BOOING THE VILLAINCOCK-A-DOODLE-DO THE ARTICHOKE—ECSTASIS 22. INTEGRATION 23. DEBRISTHE EYE 24. PURE CONSCIOUSNESSTAO 2J. TRANSCENDING SPACE DUALISM IS A FUNCTION OF TRIDI-MENSIONALITT 26. TRANSCENDING TIME 27. THE DREAMER 28. UNCOMMON-SENSE REGARDING REINCARNATION 29. UNICITY, 1UNICITY, 2 30. GOOD MORNING 31. THE HOUSE OF CARDS 32. DREAMS AND REALITY53. FREE-WILL, 4 34. LA VIDA ES SUENO 35. THE ONE FREEDOM 36. UNICITY, 3 37. THE BOGIE 38. THE THREE KNOWN DIMENSIONS ARE external; the FOURTH is withinTHE MIND FREE-WILL, 5 7° 59. THE PRESENT INCLUDES PAST AND FUTURE 7^ 40 THE COMMUNICATION OF KNOWLEDGEAND OFUNDERSTANDING 73 41. THE NIGGER 75 42. THE COLUMN OP SMOKE 77 45 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE DREAM WE ARE LIVING 79 44, TO BE OR NOT TO BE 82 45. KITTENS IN WOOL 46 DEFINITIONS, Z 86 47. l’art MODERNE 88 48 BETWEEN OURSELVES 9® QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT

THE

communication

49 DEMOCRACY 9* DEMOPHILY JO. MUTT AND JEFF 94 ji. ‘progress’ 9^ J2. IMPASSE 98 J3. THE MIND IS A MOON 1°® THE DAY OF PSEUDO-GLORYJ4 KARSIA; A SUGGESTION 1°^ FREE-WILL, 6 JJ. DUALISM IS DUODIMENSIONAL 104 TIME j6. DEBRIS 106 DEFINITIONS, 5 J7. US 108 j8. LET IT GROW IXJ XIV 39. THE SECOND BARRIER II3 60. SPONTANEITT Iiy 61. WILL, I II9 WILL, 2 WILL, 3 62. SEEKING FOR SATORI 120 SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE SUCHNESS 63. THERE IS NO *l’ BUT I 122 64. life: a DEFINITION I27 63. THE OPPOSITES AND COMPLEMENTARIES 128 66. SUBJECT AND OBJECT I30 67. FREE-WILL, 7 131 68. WHAT AM I? 132 69. THE FACT OF THE MATTER lj6 70. DEFINITION OF SPONTANEITY I37 71. THE LAST LAP I38 72. ENLIGHTENMENT I42 SPONTANEITY, 2PERSONALISED DEITYTRANSCENDING DUALISMSHOW A LEgI 7J. WHO ARE WE? 144 74. ABSOLUTELY US 147 THE OLD MAN IN THE CORNER 73. OBJECTS IN DUALITY ARE NOT SUB-JECTS IN DUALITY 149 76. EXISTING, NOT-EXISTING, OR NOT NOT-EXISTING ? I3I 77. REINTEGRATING THE SUBJECT I54 XY 78. SENSE AND NON-SENSE I57 75. THE DHARMA l6}

80. EVASION 167 81. METAPHYSICAL ANALYSIS OF WHAT WE ARE 168 82. I. RESOLVING OUR PERSONAL DUAL- I70 ITY, I 2. THE PROCESS OF RELEASE 3. INFUSION 83. THE REASON WHY I74 84. AWAKENING BY MEANS OF THE DREAM CAN ONLY BE DREAMING THAT WEARE AWAKE J76 8j. THE CRIMINAL, 1 J78 86. THE CRIMINAL, 2 186 87. STREET SCENE I90 TINKLE-TINKLE 88. RESOLVING OUR PERSONAL DUALITY, Z I91 89. GEOMETRICAL REPRESENTATION OF OUR MULTIDIMENSIONAL REALITY I94 90. THE TERM ‘ENLIGHTENMENT* I97 91. THE ESSENTIAL EXPLANATION, 1 I99 92. DO WE KNOW HOW TO READ? 200 93. IS IT A CONCEPT? 201 94. QUIDDITY 203 9J. REVERENCE 205 96. BEING 207 HOMO SAPIENS KARUNA-CARITASTHE PRESENT 97. THE POSSIBILITY OF REINCARNATION 209 XVI 98. I AM, on THE ULTIMATE SUBJECT 211 99. TRANSCENDENCE—WIIAT IT IS ZI4 100. THE WRATH OF GOD 215 101. TRANSCENDENCE OR NEUTRALISATION ? ZIJ 102. DUALITY OR DUALISM? 2I9 PERSONAL 103. THE ESSENTIAL EXPLANATION, 2 220 104. reincarnation: ultimate observation 223 105. THE essential EXPLANATION, 3: THE BIG BLACK CLOUD ZZJ 106. PERCEPTION AND REALITY 229 DIRECT COGNITION 107. ONE HALF OF A PAIR 231 108. DEMOCRACY, 2 237 ENDS AND MEANS

109. DUSTING THE PARROT 239 110. GOOD-BYE, OLD MAN 244 111. VALE 246 Epi/ogue 1. WHY LAZARUS LAUGHED 248 2. WHAT I AM . . . 251 HOW I REALISE WHAT I AM 3. I AM NOT-I ... 2J3 4. QUESTIONS THAT ARE NOT, 2 2JJ J. THE HANSOM-CAB 237 THE UNWANTED HOST STRAIGHT PROM THE HORSE’s MOUTH XV31 CONTENTS 6. TIME AND ETERNITY 2J9 WHO IS SANE? MIND AND MATTERMIND 7. PHENOMENAL REALITY OR THE REALITY OF PHENOMENA z6l FAITHI DONE IT 8 THAT WE ARE 263 9 WHAT *1T’ IS 263 10. WHOLE-MIND z66 11. TWO IS ONE 267 12. KARUNA: a REMINDER 27I 13. THE ESSENTIAL EXPLANATION, 4; REUNION OF MIND 273 THE ESSENTIAL EXPLANATION, 3 14. FALSE PREMISES 274 OBITER DICTA 13. MIND AND MATTER, 2* RESTATEMENT 276 16. THE MECHANISM OP PSYCHO-KINETIC PHENOMENA 28o 17. UNDERSTANDING OF 2EN: THE KEY THAT IS THE WAY 282 18. WHOLE-MIND AND THE WAY 287 19. THE‘doctrine^ OF SUBJECTIVITY 289 20. THE BINOCULAR ASPECT OF SUBJECTIVITY 291 21. REALISATION 295 INDEX 296 xvm 1 Ktvalnation of Values i Three False Values I Karma (‘Action^ must surely be active, notpassive It IS not ours, rather are we its We are

corksin a turbulent eddymg stream of karma, karma is theforce-field to which we are subject on the plane ofphenomena a. The T, ‘Me’, ‘Self’, whatever term we encounteror use to describe our reabty, is misleading All theseterms suggest a bemg, yet the Buddha stated again andagain m the Diamond Sutra that there is no beingOur reality is a state. Vital sans igo, a state not aperson, the I less state It is always present, and it aloneIS present 3 The ‘me’, ‘ego*, ‘self’, ‘personality’, the personalpronoun ‘I’ as we use it every moment in thought andword, IS just a mistake, an error of judgment, hke ashadow mistaken for its substance on a moonlightnight. Though there could be no shadow if there wereno substance, nevertheless the shadow remains unreal(unsubstantial)—and when the moon is hidden by adoud the shadow no longer existsEvery time we say *1’ we are making a mistake, mis-taking somethmg that isn’t there for somethmg thatIS Every such time the I less state has been misinterpreted as somethmg personal WORK AND PLAY If wc were to perceive the shadow as such, andthereby recognise its substance, the I-less state forwhat it IS, the whole *cave of illusions’ would collapseand vanish for ever. Reahty would he naked beforeus—and we should be it. Yet expression of the I-less state takes the form *1am’ on the plane of dualism, but no qualification ispossible: it is the *I am that I am’ of the Bible whichmay be described as a personal expression of the Im-personal Rather is it just ‘Am*, i e. Consaousness. 2 Buddhas for Binmw^ I think we have understood that dogmas in a worldof constant mutation arc necessarily false ? And sincewe know that everything we formulate in words, thatis, seen dualistically, is inevitably deformed, we canreadily understand that all doctrines, religious,philosophical, scientific, cannot represent more than areflection of truth. Men and women who seek doctrines, study them,endeavour to follow them, arc impeding their ownprogress. The Masters, from the Buddha down, intheir frequent condemnation of ‘discoursing* havemade that clear, and in declaring that there must be noattachment to, or identification with, the Dharmaitself (or any dharma), that even the teaching of theBuddha himself must be discarded, have left no roomfor doubt on that score. Doctrines, scriptures, sutras, essays, are not to beregarded as systems to be followed. They merelycontribute to understanding. They should be for us asource of stimulation, and nothing more. We must create each his own dijarma, understanding,and we may use those of others to help us to that end;they have no other value for us. Adopted, rather thanused as a stimulus, they are a hindrance. As the Zen 3 REALITY AND MANIFESTATION master stated to the monk whom he found studying aSutra, ‘Do not let the sutra upset you— upset the sutrayourself instead ’ Some masters expressed themselvesmore forcibly, as when they recommended thatBuddhas (statues of) were for burning and on a coldday used one as firewood, and in advising, ‘If you meetthe Buddha, turn aside and look the other way ’ Suchstatements shock the sense of reverence inculcated bythe devotional rehgions, but their meaning, their aim,their importance, are evident

PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS 3 Man h a River A river has a name, a character, a personality; it isliked or disliked as an entity. This is due to a variety offactors: its rapidity or sluggishness, its breadth, depth,length, its form and course, its smoothness, number ofislands, and the vegetation and topographical characterof its immediate environment. But it flows; fromwhatevet angle you may look, it is never the same fortwo consecutive seconds. It is just passing water, eachripple, each drop, resembling its predecessor and itssuccessor but never the same ripple or drop. There is no river. There is no man. TIME AND SPACE 4 Time and Moiement arc tao aspects of a single phenomenon"Portrait oj a Gentleman We are vortices whose centre is a point that ismotionless and eternal but which appears in mani-festation as motion which increases m veloaty in themanner of a whirlpool or tornado (whose epicentre isstill) from nucleus to periphery. But the nucleus is in Reality, whereas the vortex isphenomenon in the form of a multidimenslonal forcc-field. The periphery of tfus force-field appears as matter,of various densities, extended in space and moving intime at divers veloaties The totality of this appearance partakes of the con-sciousness which IS Its core and oMy reahty. 6 TIME AND space 5 Living Backii'ards What we know as Time is the only manner in whichour psycho-somatic apparatus is able to interpret thefourth dimension of the space in which we livephenomenally, and we interpret it serially, lineally, asone-thing-after-another. But there is no apparentreason why that lineal interpretation should proceedin one direction only, nor any apparent likelihood thatit does. In consciousness it might be expected toproceed in one lineal direction, in the unconscious inthe other, whereas in abnormal conditions, sudi asnear-death by suffocation or accident, out *timeappatatus’ sometimes re-registers the whole of our hfe-expcricnce m a composite flash. *** Is it not probable that we live our lives both ‘for-wards’ and ‘backwards’ (two arbitrary evaluations)simultaneously? Need we look further for an ex-planation of foresight, second-sight, precognition,premonitory dreams and all the other not-so-greatmysteries? *♦* In which direction of Tintt do we live in our dreams ? 7 TIME AND SPACE Is their reinterpretation by waking consaousness inIts own time-sequence not the most probable ex-planation of their oddity ^ Is there then any mystery ina dream whose action leads up to a ‘noise’ that awakensus at the moment it actually occurs in the next room? ♦♦*

Is there any reason to doubt that our drearmng mmdfunctions uninterruptedly throughout the twentj fourhours of our time, that is, from birth, or before it, todeath 5 To what extent it is subjected to a time-sequence may be doubtful and m w^ch direction suchtime-sequence may flow, but it is hkely to enjoy agreater freedom in that respect than docs our wakingconsaousness 8 THE EGO 6 Policemen Dis£:dsing Themse/tres as Thieves In Order toCatch Themselves Of Ae many earnest, and how earnest, people wemay observe reading, attendmg lectures, studying andpractising disciplines, devoting their energies to theattainment of a liberation which is by definition un-attainable, how many are not striving via the ego-coneept which is itself the only barrier between whatthey think they are and that which they wish to becomebut always have been and always will be ? Were we to read less and understand more might wenot remember that the T*ang Masters repeatedly toldus that mmd cannot be reached through mind, andthat there is only one mind? Perhaps less earnestpeople pay more attention to what they were told bythose who knew? Armchair Travelling Knowing that no such thing as an *ego’ can exist,but continuing to talk and think about ‘the* ego, i.e. assomething still beheved in, is like someone whodecides to go for a journey, packs his luggage—andthen never leaves home ( 5) Lf Fantocbe If one seeks to rid oneself of, or even to transcend, afalse self, ego or personabty, one thereby accepts as afact the existence of such entity and so doing affirmsIts stranglehold (a constraint can be real or imagmary—such as that of a chicken’s beak held by a chalk line) That of which we need to nd ourselves, to transcend,is the false concept whereby we assume that entity’sexistence We have only to look with penetration inorder to percave that there is m fact nothmg in uswhich corresponds to the concept of an entity, in ourever changing kaleidoscope of electromc impulsesinterpreted m the false perspective of a time sequenceA pulsating force field is not an entity to be transcended any more than is vapour issuing from thespout of a kettle or the apparendy hvmg bemgresultmg from the rapid and consecutive projection ofisolated and motiordess ‘stills* (or quanta) on to acmematograph screen There is not, there could not be, any entity, theBuddha based lus doctnne upon that reahsation, therecan be nothmg of which to rid ourselves or totranscend, except an erroneous concept 8 Free-will Versus Determinism ‘Discussions concerning the predominance of the■will over destiny, or vice versa, can only take placeamong those who lack knowledge of the root of both.Those who have knowledge of the Self, sole root ofthe will and of destiny, are free from the one and theother. After that how can they take part in sudt dis-cussions?’ Ramana Maharshi Ulladu Narpadu, 19(Forty Verses on the Knowledge of Being) An essential difference between a Jivan hfukta andan ordinary unenlightened man is that the former hastranscended the duality inherent in the apparent con-tradiction between Frce-wiU and Determinism.

The Jivan Mukta, having abandoned the concept ofan ego, subject to which the ordmary man lives, hiswill no longer has any alternative to complete har-mony ■with that of the cosmic order, so that he ‘wills*what must be, without any kind of resistance (therebeing in him no longer any psychic mechanism capableof resistance), whereas the ordinary man, subject to hisego-concept, is unable to perceive what must be, andseeks to substitute the desires aggregated to his artifiaal ‘ego’, which he imagines he is free to fulfil ifhe can Nather is ‘free’ m the sense thought of by theordinary man, but the one experiences no lack of‘freedom’ or any constraint, whereas the other spendshis life m an imagmary conflict, a tiltmg against windnulls, trying to assert a ‘freedom’ he could not possiblyenjoy That IS why the Jivan Mukta lives his life withoutconflict, and usually devotes himself to helping theunenlightened to rid themselves of their errors bytranscending the ego concept, for on that plane, theplane of understandmg, real imderstanding being m afurther dimension that is not subject to the SpaceTime mechamsm, even the ordinary man is ‘free’ (ofthe aforesaid mechaniaty) to nd himself of hisIgnorance 9 Free mil, z Our sole freedom is the faculty of imderstanding,for there is only one mind, and nothmg else is (TheT’ang Masters have been quoted to this effect, espeaallyHsiYun) It follows that our only liberty of ‘action* hes in theexetase of this faculty, and the resulting change in ourapparent selves If this should appear diHicult to comprehend wemight do well to envisage mind as an ultimate subtletyor essence traversing all dimensions, manifesting mall, and constituting thereby a /latson between thedensest force field of the material world and AbsoluteReahty, of which it is the purest manifestation percepuble to us Free mil, 3 How can a figment of the imagination have anyeffect on anything that is not itself a figment of theimagination^ Therefore any effect resulting from anact of ‘will’ subject to the ego-concept can only be asimagmary as itself 15 10 Freedom, i Our freedom resides in mind, of which *ours’ is theaspect we experience. Knowledge is unreal, or relative,but Understanding is real. Wc are free to understand ifwe can. But knowledge comes by reasoning, whereas under-standing comes by intuition. It may be, however, thatthe knowledge obtained by reasoning can open theway for intuition, though to that end knowledge mustbe seen for what it is, Aat it is relative and not real. As a result of •understanding we function on adifferent plane, little as it may effect the mode of lifewe enjoy. Above all wc may come to perceive thefutility of our struggle to impose the supposed desiresof our *ego* on the inevitable. The Taoist injunction,taken over by Buddhism, to hve in accordance with^nature' must mean just Freedom, z The Maharshi also wrote on a piece of paper when ayoung man: ‘Whatever is destined not to happen willnot happen, try as you may. Whatever is destined tohappen will happen, do what you may to prevent it.This is certain.’ 14

He was uncompromising in this teachmg Hisanswer was ‘Find out who it is who is predestined orhas free will * More exphatly he said ‘All the actions that the bodyIS to perform are already deaded upon at die time itcomes into existence the only freedom you have iswhether or not to identify yourself with the body *That means that in playing our part in the comedy mwhich we are given a role and which we call our life,we can identify ourselves with our role, really imagmewe are the character whose part we are playing, orstand apart mentally and play it by sheer techmque ‘All the actions that the body ts to perform are ^eadydecided upon at the time it comes into existence *The mind has a certam freedom, but not to deade theactions of the body Its most valuable freedom is thebberty to understand and thereby to nd itself of itsidentifications and particularly of its illusion of individuality When it has imdcrstood as much as that, itIS at the disposition of Mmd Itself and may awaken toReality at any moment 15 11 Dibns There may well be ‘dog’ (in Reality), but therecannot be such a thing as a dog ♦♦* What jusufication could there be for regarding thebodies of living things as having any higher value, ornobler purpose, than that of prospective manure^ Isthat not honour enough anyhow^ According to whatlaw IS there any higher^ »** Play your part m the comedy, but don’t identifyyourself with your role! Manifestations of multiple energies, what else aremen 5 Karma is not a thing in itself nor a system inventedby some esoteric religion ‘Karma* is a short and convenient word for the cumbrous expression ‘the forceof circumstances’ We ate all aspects of one another Blaming a man for what he ‘does’ is m accordancei6 With the same process of logic as blammg a door whenIt bangs or an object when it fells on your foot * 4: « A school IS an effiaent instrument for rcinforcmgthe stranglehold of the so-called *cgo*. Much reading is also a struggling to ^attain*. '7 12 Turning the Other Cheek That was something that particular force field hadto do What a clown I would be to praise or blame thatforce-field on account of it—as though it were an actof free-will on the part of an mdependent entity I TheSelf of which that fora field is a manifestation is immutable and does not ‘act* Neither the reahty of thatforce field nor of this one is involved Were I even tosmile at the mcident, that would indicate that I stillretained a trace of the notion that an individual entity‘did’ something that pleased or annoyed me Poached Eggs {all of la) Atgumg about transcending the I-concept, ‘reducmg’ the ‘power’ of the ego, or what-not, is merelyevidence of continued behefin the reahty of that which,being merely a concept, is totally imreal

It IS hke a man saying, ‘I am perfectly sane I knowthat I am not a poached egg, mdced I am busilyengaged m unpoadimg myself and soon I shall noteven need a piece of toast m order to be able to sitdown ’ REALITY AND MANIFESTATION Have we ever wondered why the Zen Masters, onthe rare occasions on which they refer to the I-concept, only do so indirectly m some such terms as‘the dirt on your face’ ^ It IS enough for them to show us that concepts aremevitably unreal Any attempt to ‘reduce* or ‘trans-cend’ or ‘disaphne’ what is only a concept can onlyaffirm its illusory appearance of reahty When allconcepts are seen for what they are, that is, are re-cogmsed as such and nothing more, the ego findsitself in the waste-paper basket with the rest *♦* From the ‘Physics and Metaphysics’ angle of visionwe have seen clearly enough that there could notpossibly be such a thing as an I The notion is asludicrous as attributmg individuahty to the soundmade by reeds stirred by the wind *9 WORK AND PLAY 13 Group Egoism—A Causerie We worry a lot about the I-concept of the in-dividual, but rarely about the I-concept of the group. Families also sometimes have developed pro-tuberant egos. And as for nations . . . Nationalism is a marufestation of the ego of a group,often esacerbated to an extent that social conditionsdeny to the individual. Even associations, clubs, and particularly politicalpatties, develop an I-concept with the lamentable andridiculous results that accompany all manifestations ofthis concept. Yet there is no reality in such phenomena, otherthan the ultimate reality without which phenomenacould not manifest. But just as there have always been families whichhave escaped the development of such a concept, andassociations, clubs, even parties which are merelySUCH, so nationalism is only a sporadic growth andhas not always existed in our or any other civilisation. Many people ate proud of this manifestation andregard it as a virtue, just as some people cherish prideas a quality: lesprimairescivilisiSf kscivtlisisprimaires. Perhaps if we are able to transcend the ego-ism ofthe group we may the more easily find the way to PHYSICS AND METAPHYSICS 14 Travail Anthropologists, and even the general public, knowthat m many parts of the world, among some so-calledprimitive peoples, the husband goes to bed and ex-periences Ae birth-pains of his wife who is in travail. It would be of no avail were you to tell him that hispains are imaginary, that he had no organs susceptibleof causing such pains, and that he has no occasion tohave them. He is subjected to that concept and is unableto transcend it. Is not the I-concept, to which we, so-called non-primitive people, ace subjected, just that? Dream Figures. *As Below . . /

It may be useful to re-cmphasise that not only theprotagonist but everyone who appears in our dreams isthe dreamer of the dream. This should be obviousenough, but until thought of and tested it is apt to bedenied. Whatever name and apparent identity isattributed to dream personages, it can readily beperceived, not merely theoretically, that such personsare not in fact the individuals named as they were orare, even m memory, but the projection on to thosenames of a concept of the dreammg mind utilising just 15 The Aian in the Moon ‘But what is more concrete than the I-Rcality?’Concrete. ‘Each of us can have direct experience of it at anymoment.* Each of ns. 'Moreover the I-Reality is the only thing that is un-questionably known to us.* The only thing. (TheMaharshi, Etudes, p. 127.) He also tells us that the reality of objects is re-presented not by the form given them by craftsman orartist but by the material (gold or clay, for instance) ofwhich they are made; and that the principle of realitydocs not reside in the design of the painter but in thecanvas on which it is painted, not in the apparentlymoving images of the cmema but in the surface on towhich they are projected. Which is pure Vedanta and,I think, pure Zen. Reahty might, perhaps, be regarded as our texture,though not in a mateni sense but rather as consciousbemg, and its realisation as consciousness of being. Could truth be more luminously suggested via ourdualistic medium of words? Are these not fingerspointing directly at the Man in the Moon ? After all, our texture is Pure Consdousness, whichIS a defimtion of Reahty Itself. 24 16 You mist Dig Deep to B/ay Yottr Shadojv—A Caitserk We cannot dispose of our shadow by running awayfrom it, nor can anyone bury his shadow, however deepthe hole he may dig. A shadow can only be affected viathe reality of which it is a distorted and unsubstantialprojection. The Mahatshi is said to have pointed out that so it iswith the ego. The f-concept can oniy be abandoned byseeking out the I-Reality of which it is a fluctuatingand intangible reflection. One may suspect that herein lies an essentialdivergence between the Vedantic and ZenTaoistapproach and that of modem Japanese Zen The latterappears to seek satori by means of a manipulation ofthe psyche, a process that is represented by the Ko-ansystem of training, which seems to be in contradictionto the repeated affirmation of die T'ang Masters thatMind cannot be reached through mind (or Reahtythrough its shadow). Dr. Hubert Benoit has revealed to us the mechanismof this process, whereby a diversion of the Attentionon to a conundrum, that has no significance in itself,isolates energy at its point of entry mto manifestation,energy that would normally be disintegrated in futileaffectivity and phantasy, and thereby promotes an accumulation without whidi the explosion of satoricannot readily take place (The Supreme Doctrme, p 103) Quite so But on what plane was the inventor of theKo an system operatmg^ The Maharshi and Hsi Yunwere speaking to us from the plane of Reality ItselfPerhaps, however, we can use the shadow as anindication of the whereabouts of its source ?

17 The Keason Mentation being a duabstic activity implying boththinker ind thought, ‘I* cannot reach the Witness ofthat activity Which is non dual And the reason of ibat is that I am that impersonalWitness and nothing else whatsoe\ er *** The third dimension is \ concept and not a fact ofperceptual experience, as ve suppose Which is presumably why animals are only aware of two at a time The world around us is a concept, not a percept Itis a concept resultmg from the percept of a percept(‘ourselves’) of the Unsclf ♦** Our life IS an elaborate analysis of a moment 18 Definitions In an attempt to reduce confusion resulting from theuse of manifold terms with divers meanings by variousauthors, I propose henceforth to try the followingneologisms THE DIVIDUAL—for individual, person, personality,self, me, *me’s We know that no such entity canexist as such, since the phenomenon is either to bedescribed, physically, as a fluctuating force field (anelectronic flux in perpetual mutation), or, metaphysically, as an apparent objectivisation of consaousness, without permanence or any duration,renewed every instant and variable Psychologicallythis phenomenon appears as a succession of *me’s,multifarious and frequently contradictory, but thisIS merely an effect created by the identification of theI concept with each impulse as it arises in the psycheTHE IMPERSON—for the impersonal Witness, orrelative self, Which, though ConsaousnesS Itself,appears to observe both the thought and thesupposed thmker thereof, and, as su^, has to beindicated m duabstic language as an entity that atthe same time is not sudi THE UNSELF—for the Self, pure Awareness, Consciousness, Reality, my Principle, Cosmic or 28 Universal Mind, Suchness, Quiddity, the Absolute,Godhead. The choice of this term to represent thesehardly demands explanation. This does not please anybody? Sorry. I willoccasionally use the usual expressions so as not todeprive anybody of his right to mcertitude. 19 19 Tbe Great Joke The Imperson witnesses cvcrjihing ‘we’ do andeverything ‘\vc* think (all psychic and physical mamfestation), and that is the great joke For we ourselvesarc the Imperson, and the ‘wc’ that acts and thinks isonly a personalisation of the one Unself (Rcabty) seenas phenomenon, a notion that as phenomenon hasneither permanence nor duration but is renewed everyinstant Duality (ignorance) is partial identification with thephenomenal ‘we’, whidi has no real existence, due tothe I concept therein, and non duality (wisdom) is thedissolution of that partial identification, leaving us inour normal and unalterable identification with theUnsclf The term ‘Imperson* is a duahstic term like anyother, seeking to convey the essential impersonality ofthe Unself conceived, as is inevitable to us, as a ‘person’ that is not such

** It is difficult to approach more nearly by the use ofwords, which are essentially and mcorrigibly dualist,but the Sages have sometimes made it clear that ourbest, perhaps our only, method of dissolving the false 50 identification is by coming to recognise and to hiowourselves as the witnessing Imperson, as which weboth perceive *our’ actions physical and mental (whichare m no sense ours) and ‘ourselves’ performing thoseactions (which in no sense do we perform). 31 20 Defwitms of Non-atlacbment‘Non-attachment* m the sense of the Zen Masters, oras so translated from the Chinese, maj^ sometimes meanawareness, but m the sense of non-attachment to allmental processes, i.c. thought and feeling, so that inthe absence of ‘mentation* pure consaousness canflood in and take possession of the psyche. That is a highly technical sense of what is ordinarilymeant by Non-attachment or by Detachment, and thatmay be what the word Dhyana, so inadequatelyrendered by ‘Meditation*, really implies. The Zen Masters* condemnation of meditationapplies to mental meditation, which implies thought,i.c. mentation, whereas Dhyana may imply non-mcnial(No-mind) meditation. Misunderstanding of the mean-ing of words, m translation, is the cause of muchconfusion. 52 21 Booing the Villain It is as absurd to blame historical personages for theparts they have played in history as it is to blame thepersonages of a novel or of a film. It is no less absurd to blame o\ir contemporaries inthe moment of history in "which we ourselves aresustaining a role. We may envy or pity those who have to play certainparts—that can Imdly be called absurd, dthoughultimately we ourselves play every part and are thepicture itself. If to praise or to blame is evidently an example offailure to understand, is their extension, ‘loving and‘hating*, any less idiotic? Cockra-dooiU-do The cock in Qtantccler crows so proudly because heis convinced that it is his crowing that causes the simto rise. It would seem that Advalta Vedanta and theLankavatara Sutra demonstrate that he is right andthat it is indeed his crowing that causes the sun to rise.Did not that admirable philosopher Bishop Berkeleycome to the same conclusion? 33 22 Integration ‘There is no mind but Mind*. Nothing IS permanent except Coasaousncss ItselfEverything, mteUigence, sensanoo, the body, is disCrete, xpithout continuity or duration Everymomentary mamfestatioa of every one of thesenotions IS a fresh manifestation of ConsciousnessItself That each such mamfcstatioo seems to resembleIts immediate predecessor, giving the illusion of acontinuous entity, has obscured the

realisation of thisessential condition This re\ eals the full meanmg of what the Sages havetold us, and vrc can sec that O>nsciousness is the onlyReahty, alone is, alone is us, and that there is nothmgelse to look for smce It only is here and now It is us, we ate It, anything else is just an apparentobject of that Consaousness, i e a concept therem *** At every moment and in all circumstances we mustreahse our identity with Consaousness Itself, onceand for all we must sec ourselves umted Therewith,observe as the Witness Itself evetythmg perceived viasenses or mmd, mcluding that mind and bod) them-selves, reabsmg everything so observed as apparent 3J objects Within this Consaousness outside Which therecan be nothing This IS the transference of identification from the socalled psycho-somatic apparatus to Reality, but it is infact merely the remowl of a false identification and areturn to the norm Nothing any longer can be seen asfrom a subject, as the object of a subject that is otherthan pure and original Consciousness (Reality) ItselfI, we, no longer see, hear, touch, smell, taste, think,feel, for there is not, could not be, any I or we, whichwere only notions that transformed transitory objectsof Consciousness into imaginary entities Suchimaginary entities were powerless to do anything whatsoever^ they were only thoughts renewed every instant,apparent objectivisations of Consaousness ItselfT’, Ve’ Here evaluations, notions, ideas I, ortnothing but Consaousness, Reality, and never couldbe anything else ‘We* have no percepts, concepts or ideas of any kind,*we’ have nothing—for do not exist, only Con saousness appears to have them, and as Consaousnesswe know them Now that we are seeing directly at last—have ueunderstood what we are^ *♦* That IS the meaning of Vedanta Advaita, of theLankavatara Sutra, of the Diamond Sutra, of HuiNeng, of Huang Po, of every explanation of theMaharshi Every authentic explanation coming from the plane36 of Reality tries to tell us just that. A re-statement,certainly not in any -way ‘better* in itself, but in currentlanguage, may cause imdcrstanding to arise, but suchunderstanding cannot come from the transient pheno-menal aspect of mind: it can only come if an intuitionof Consciousness Itself finds sudden dualistic ex-pression via that projected mind. 57 23 Dibrts I do not experience I am experience I am not Ae subject of an experience I am thatexperience ‘I am’ awareness Nothing else can be I or can exist *«« An ‘event’ may be inevitable, i e the product ofcircumstances, but our experience of that event is unconditioned—since there is nobody to experience theevent apart from the experience itself *♦*

If time IS reversed, and it needs must be reversible,what we describe as ‘effect’ becomes ‘cause’, and‘cause’ becomes ‘effect’, for they are one An eventmay be seen as the product of circumstances or circumstances may be seen as the product of an eventExperience of either is I The electronic force field influx, through which experience occurs and whichassumes an identity thereby, can only be what mightbe termed an externalisation of an aspect of the realitywhich we are * * s(t 38 24 Pure Ccnsciousness Only as Pure Consciousness am I conscious of anythmg Only Pure Consaousness is consaous of anything,for only as Pure Consciousness am I myself consaous The^ore only as Pure Consaousness does anythmg exist There is no other consciousness, no other*mind’ Evetythmg that seems other than Pure Consaousness, 1 e every ‘object* of consciousness— myself, you,thought or object ‘perceived*, is a notion m PureConsaousness But why does Pure Consciousness havenotions ^ ** * Tao What IS the use of talking about the objects of consaousncss ■whether they be thoughts, sensations orhot water botdes ^ Objects must have a subjectsubject object is a pair of opposites, like all otherswhich are two halves of one whole That whole iswhatever you choose to call it But as Reahty has Unreahty as Its other half Bemg—Non bemg Absolute-Relative, and so on ad titfinittim (even ‘non dual Con40 REALITY AND MANIFESTATION sciousness’ is opposed by ‘Dual Consaousness’, TureG^nsaousness* by ‘Impure*, ‘Umversal Mind* by‘Pamculat*) either a term that has no apparent meanmg, that is unconditioned, such as ‘Tao’ must be usedand on the imderstandmg that it must necessarily beidentical with ‘Non Tao’—^whatever that could be, orelse both pairs of opposites must be used togetherAnd why not^ Does not sudi a composite term helpus to realm what it implies ? ‘Reahty Unreahty*,‘Consaousness Unconsaousness*, ‘Absolute Relative*,‘Universal Particular Mind’, ‘Duahty Non duahty’,‘Dual—^Non dual Consaousness* In other words—TAO There can be no objects of consaousness anyhowthere can only be subject objects which are Consaousness Unconsciousness Itself Everything is just—^TAO ♦♦* Mmd versus Matter is unreal, hke all duahsm, butMmd Matter as a suchness is real To reahsc the latterIS at least as important as it is to reahsc the formerUsuall}, however, the former alone is pomted out—and the unfortunate pilgnm is left with the impressionthat both are unreal, whereas, in fact, each is unreal butboth are real Each half of every pair of opposites is unreal Bothhalves of every pair of opposites, united m theirquiddity, are Reahty Unreahty, or Tao The reumon of every pair of opposites renders themnon-dual 41

REALITY AND MANIFESTATIONThat IS appioxunatdy as far as words can carry onetowards understanding the nature of—Tao *** UJnconcevahh—^give it any odier name or label youwish for It can never be other than that 25 Trmscenimg Space Man has never had any difficulty in stopping time,mentally, but he sees it as immobile space His highestflight IS to compensate the negation of time by extendmg Space—as m the l^nga shartra, or Long body, allwe are from birth to death stretched out hke a snakeCan we be satisfied with this ^ But m order to negateSpace we can only extend or contract it And whichever we do, if we do it wholeheartedly, what we arriveat IS a void The Void^ What more do we want^ Didnot the Lord Buddha tell us that was all there wasan3rway^ *** Space IS only the distance between objects, i e aconcept, an idea, a notion *** Dnahsm ts a Function ofTndimensionahtj The relativity of the umverse as perceived by us is aconsequence of the hmitation m our perception ofdimensions When that sensorial hmitation in directionsof measurement is removed, the separation of subjectand object ceases and we unite with the ten thousandthings municity 45 TIME AND SPACE 26 Transcending Time The Linga Sharira, or Long Body, refers to the totalor composite body of a man from birth to death as itshould be revealed if the time process in which it isperceived consecutively were to be transcendedBut are we not also the totality of our forebears anddescendants, or, in a spatial but non temporal image,one element of that—to us—^vast total body ^ We mustall be one ‘body’— from the ‘beginning’ to the ‘end* asperceived in the time aincept, one vast body of whicheach (to us) individual may be likened to a cellHowever, to transcend the temporal concept whileretaimng the spatial seems to have httle sense, save thatIt IS easier to conceive Our notion of timelessness isjust immobihty, what we describe as ‘time standingstill*. But spacelessness is harder on the mind Todeprive the vast body, whidi the removal of time hasleft on our hands, of its spatial character, is to reduce itto nuUity or void, for even the timest pomt we canimagine occupies space Body* implies ‘matter*, and matter implies ex-tension in space To follow this concept leads usbeyond the boundaries of our mind and into the regionof unicity in which we really are 44 REALITY AND MANIFESTATION 27 Tbt Dreamer ONE: The universe is My dream. Every thing therein,including *you* and *me*, is an element of thatdream—from elephant to virus, from nebula toatom. TWO: Then each of us dreams a universe ? How comesit that we all dream the same universe ? one: Each of us does not dream a universe. Only Idream ibe universe. You all perceive the

sameuniverse precisely because you are all elements inMy dream. two: Is that concept not—let us say—somewhategoistic? ONE: ‘Egoism’ is a dualistic concept and implies ‘non-egoism’. But there is no such thing in reality as non-egoism. Therefore there is no egoism either. There isonly I—and nothing else (which would be necessary)to constitute egoism. TWO: But why is the universe your dream any morethan mine? one: I have already told you: ‘you* do not existexcept as dreamed by Me. T wo: Supposing I reply that ‘you* do not exist exceptas dreamed by Me ? ONE: That is xinnecessary: it goes without saying. 45 REALITY AND MANIFESTATIONTWO: There is evidendy something I have failed tounderstand. ONE: That is due to our dualistic language, inadequateto the communication of truth. We have to use thesame word to convey several meanings. You arestill thinkmg m terms of identification with a body.You are usmg the terms ‘you’ and ‘me’ in order tomdicate the unreal elements of My dream which archoldmg this conversation. Unreal elements of adream cannot dream the universe of which they arcelements. two: Then who dreams it? ONE: I do. Anyone who says T do’. For that I is theAbsolute, Reality, Consciousness Itself, CosmicMind, Tao. That I is One—no matter who says it.two: Obscure,veryobscurelONE: ‘Obscure’ my footl It is as cleat as daylight, assimple and obvious as anything within the grasp ofMind in manifestation. Only its expression is obscure—^for it has been expressed in words. TWO: So I am everything in this universe, as I ameverything in the umverse of my sleeping dreams,every elephant, every virus, every nebula, everyatom, ‘you’ and ‘I’ ?one: You have understood. TWO: What more is there to say?one: Nothing whatsoever. Everything is explained,every word of every Sage and Ma«j