Hi Roy, Merry Christmas or whatever.
Roy, you tell us to abide in oneness, but if I do that, I can’t see how my needs will be met, practically speaking.
Can you clear that up?
Abiding in oneness means having no needs. How can you need what is already part of you? In separation, that which fulfills the needs always resides outside.
To the mechanism of personality, this-here-now is always insufficient.
It seems that you are enslaved by your mind. In the absence of any thought concerning “I” or “me”, where are the needs?
Ask yourself if you have the courage to drop all of your habitual certainties and trust that these seeming needs will be met?
To embrace the unlimited, one must release one’s hold on the limited. Release the deathgrip; you can always return to it.
Roy, I have been trying to kill the ego for better than twenty years. It’s not dead yet, so something must not be right?
Do you have any pointers that might help?
Only that which has been created needs to be maintained in order to avoid destruction. Ego is such a maintenance-driven creation. Therefore, all efforts to be rid of ego merely reinforce the sense of identification with it, thus maintaining it.
Just stop. You can always re-start. Stop what you are doing and stop what you are not doing.
Now see what remains.
Can you discern that nothing will make you more of what you already are? Is there any need to make water wetter?
Is there really a person, who from an inside experiences something outside itself, or is there only experiencing wherein the person is the experienced?
Even the most cursory inquiry reveals the obvious: the presence of the Conscious Life Energy.
Let your attention rest there.
Roy, can you explain the relationship between experiencing, mind, no-mind, and the witness?
Mind is the screen onto which images are projected. Yet, without light, the images cannot be seen. Language is the instrument of the mind as the mind, in time, and the body, in space, are the instruments of the Conscious Life Energy.
No-mind cannot be known. The end of questions is the end of mind because mind is the source of all questions. Yet, since mind cannot register its own absence, how is this to be known?
Whatever the experience is true or false, the fact of experiencing is undeniable. What is experienced is the content of consciousness. It is involvement with every “this” appearing to That. The root experience is I-am from which all else emanates.
In the absence of involvement, there is only recordation, in the sense that a video camera takes in everything without comment or preference. Some call this witnessing.
Happy Holidays, Roy. I can say that I am conscious of myself. Is that a step in the right direction?
To say that you are conscious of yourself implies that there are two. First, there is the consciousness, then there is yourself, that which you are conscious of.
There is consciousness, the subjective, and its object, yourself. Which are you?
In order to reference a certain form, we name it, say Roy. This form behaves in certain ways. These behaviors become the personality of the form Roy. Thoughts appear; they are said to be Roy’s.
Everything points back to this name, but said name is not an entity. Reification, or the conceptual creation of entities where none exist, is what programmers call “bad coding”. That’s really quite appropriate. You’re operating from a faulty program.
Objectification is a process of exteriorization. It is the placement of impermanent phenomena outside oneself. He who knows the source as source and appearance as appearance takes his stand outside of outside.
He responds “not me, not mine” to all appearances.
Happy Holidays to you too.