You are hereForums / Non-Duality / Homage to Wei Wu Wei.
Homage to Wei Wu Wei.
In the Silence of the Mind I Sing
There is nobody and nothing to be aware of Awareness,
Awareness, I cannot be aware of myself,
For I know no self of which I could be aware.
I am no thing of which to be aware,
As a thing 'you' cannot know awareness,
For 'you' can only be aware as 'I',
When there is no 'me' of which to be aware.
Divided into cognising subject cognising objects,
I cognise all that can be cognised,
Every conceptual thing save what is cognising,
Which, as such, is not conceivable, since it is no thing,
And is no thing, since it is not conceivable.
This is all I am, so simple am I,
Devoid of mystery, majesty, divinity,
Of any attribute whatever.
Being no thing,
How could I have the attribute of any thing?
Why try to glorify me?
I am neither glorious nor not-glorious,
I am neither anything nor nothing,
Neither the presence nor the absence of any thing.
I am this total phenomenal absence
Which is all that phenomenal presence can be.
Then how can I be known?
I cannot.
How can I be experienced?
I cannot.
Only 'God' can be experienced,
And He is my concept, my object.
But when conceptualising is in abeyance,
Time is in abeyance also,
And space, together with all concepts.
Then all that you are I am.
You are my 'self'. I can have no other.
- 913 reads
-
You are well-come, Marcus. Wei Wu Wei is one of three mirrors that I enjoy peering at the most. I enjoy the reflections that I see, in his observations, immensely. Glad you do also.
You said something that prompts a response in me:
"Don't ever miss the opportunity to meet an enlightened being, if it happens."
I have no interest in meeting anyone that I may be tempted to feel is "enlightened" or more enlightened than someone else. That differentiation, of someone being enlightened or more enlightened than someone else, is a trick of the ego. A trick to keep itself fully intact and operational.
The chief operating quality of the ego is that of differentiation, or this is A and that is not A. All differentiated appearances are products of The Great Differentiator, the ego. Including he or she is enlightened, whereas someone else is not.
What I prefer to experience, instead, is "I am you" with everyone that I cross paths with. From the smelliest passenger, who uses profane language, on the bus that I may be riding... to someone else who may be inflicting harm on another person and stirring my inner anger.
I am everyone with whom I cross paths with, Marcus.
Including someone like you, who sees someone as enlightened and someone else as not.
I am you as well.
Peter: "I have no interest in meeting anyone that I may be tempted to feel is "enlightened" or more enlightened than someone else. That differentiation, of someone being enlightened or more enlightened than someone else, is a trick of the ego."
Response: Well in this point you seem to have a different opinion. Even Wei Wu Wei's book is titled "Ask the Awakened" and not "Ask the Unawakened".
So there must be meant something else with "Someone is enlightened and someone is not". What was meant is that there are differences between apparent individuals, but these differences are illusory. All are "enlightened/awakened" as they are because the whole world/manifestation/everything is that enlightened Here and Now with no exception.
But there are apparent individuals, Wei Wu Wei calls them "Masters" with a capital "M", which are AWARE that the world of thoughts is an illusion and there are other apparent individuals which could benefit from meeting those "Enlightened Beings".
The nature of the ego is to make differences, yes. And if the differences between the enlightened and the unawakened are seen as real the ego will be based on this assumption. The job of the Master is to show that he is not really different from the other. And yet, this is a difference, illusory it may be.
Non-duality/Advaita is not about saying: "Everything is the same", for nothing is the same as an apperance! Everything is an illusory manifestation of the same source, yes. And there is no real separation between the source and its manifestation, yes. But there is an illusory separation and illusory differences between appearances. And this has to be understood. To see differences between the "enlightened" and the "unenlightened" is not wrong nor misleading, as long as it is understood to be illusory.
The ego is not based an the differentations between A and B, but on the perception of the differentiations as real!!!
A real Master is aware of this fact. And it would be misleading to say "I am not enlightened", because what's the point in talking then? And it would be as misleading to say "I am enlightened, you not". So it has to be explained. But does the ego ever understand? The ego takes every differentation for real. So this is the predicament of the "Enlightened" - as long as the ego listens with its own believes it will never understand properly.
Therefore Wei Wu Wei writes: "this understanding ... cannot be transferred or transmitted." And this is what I also found in the meeting with Dr. Shankar. Therefore I recommend the meeting with an enlightened being! The meeting between the illusory "unawakened" with the illusory "awakened". ASK THE AWAKENED!!!
Quote: Wei Wu Wei: “I have expressed my view that since we have no fully-awakened Master available to maneuver us into the correct orientation, we must proceed via objective understanding. Alas, we have no living Masters available in the West at present, as far as I am aware, but we have the great awakened Masters of the past whose words have been preserved... We are not helped by our own regrettable tendencies to misuse our own words.“
Referring back to the snippet of WWW's that I began this thread with:
"This is all I am, so simple am I,
Devoid of mystery, majesty, divinity,
Of any attribute whatever.
Being no thing,
How could I have the attribute of any thing?"
Sample attributes : enlightened, awakened, wise, ignorant, deceived, dualistic, etc.
"How could I have the attribute of any thing" indeed.
Peter: It's a lot simpler than our minds would like it to be.
Response: Did you not also meet a Master? In the books of Wei Wu Wei for example, or Nisargadatta Maharaj? And did you not also accept that their words are far deeper than your mind's believes at that time?
The Master sitting in front in the satsang is fully aware of the illusory difference between him an the others! But for the ego's sitting there, not being able to bear that there are differences between apparent individuals, he says "I am not enlightened" from time to time. Just because he doesn't want the other to leave.
In fact the Master is aware that there is a difference between his understanding of life and the understanding of the egos sitting with him. But he is also aware that he could not take any credit for it, because man is not the doer. To be awakened, meaning to be aware of the illusoriness of all known, is part of the evolutionary process of life and not the effect of anything the ego thinks to have done. So there is no point in being humble with ostentation!
And don't forget the words of Wei Wu Wei: "To acquire understanding at the hands of others is to close the gates of self-enlightenment" So without explanations and guidance in self-enquiry it is not very likely that an understanding happens in the other. Wei Wu Wei: "In fact my understanding is valueless to you, quite necessarily so, even it be the correct understanding."
Humility itself is too much. It requires there be someone who is humble.
To even think "this one is awakened, this one is not" has split the universe in two.
Saying, thinking "there is an other" has already sealed the deal.
No, before that, the thought there is "One" has created the
unhealable split of the One, a concept that means absolutely
nothing "in itself," meaningless except in relational terms.
The first thought, One, or "I", is itself the Big Bang:
A new universe explodes into infinite multiplicity.
The way home is in that silence that abides
prior to and yet even as that first violence that appears,
as that first thought slips out, expressed:
In the beginning...was the word.
Only in the grace of perfect silence does absolute peace abide.
It alone is the abode of "not two," and, no "One."
Les: "The way home is in that silence that abides
prior to and yet even as that first violence that appears,
as that first thought slips out, expressed:
In the beginning...was the word.
Response: Real Silence is not just the absence of words. Words are just sounds and appear in the mind as words with meanings. But all this happening is of no disturbance to the witness, the silent watcher of all which appears in consciousness who is not and does not feel like separate from any illusory manifestation. The ego on the other hand perceives the illusory world as real, meaning it takes words for real entities in life to be dealt with as a doer. The witness is a sophisticated ego which perceives words with meanings as utterly illusory. There is no need for "silence" in the "outside", because "you" are silence appearing as sound too.
Les: "Only in the grace of perfect silence does absolute peace abide.
It alone is the abode of "not two," and, no "One."
Response: "Perfect silence" in the sense of total absence of thoughts is not needed. To abide in Perfect Silence is to perceive the One APPEAR as two. Thoughts are there as sound in the mind always. Awakening is not about the absence of thoughts, it is about being free of them, meaning: to perceive thoughts as sounds and not as real.
Only because the One appears as two there could be an enjoyment of the illusion. The Real reflects itself as the illusion. Only the illusory could be enjoyed, never the real. So that which appears like "the violent act", the appearance of the "I"-thought is grace itself. Without the illusory world in the human mind, it would neither be possible to perceive this world of thoughts as real nor as illusory. To perceive it as real causes the sense of doership and all kinds of feelings and emotions in the mind. To perceive it as illusory is happiness which is totally independent from every appearance.
This happiness is very ordinary. Like a healthy body is not even felt by its owner most of the time, a healthy perception of the world, i.e. as illusory, is very ordinary and not even felt all the time. Only the ill body is noticed as is the misperception of the illusory as real.
This understanding is natural "humility" and not what the ego believes it to be. To think "I have to appear humble" is to accept humility as real. This leads to all kinds of "spiritual behaviour" just to fit into the expectations of the seeker. A true master is not even concerned about appearing humble or not. He is aware that humility is just a thought in the mind of the observer and not a reality in life. Whatever he happens to say or do will be interpreted by the audience according to their conditioning. Therefore it was written "To appear humble does not help either!"
Thanks for your comments, Marcus.
I find no argument or disagreement with any of them, and see our viewpoints, if there be two, as in nearly perfect accord.
The only discordant note I am hearing regards the apparent esteem and reverence you seem to place in the idea of a "Master Teacher" or fully-realized being in form. I think your comment in your last reply above says it all: "To perceive it as illusory is happiness which is totally independent from every appearance."
This universal perception of illusion must needs extend to the idea of a separate other called "Master Teacher" as well. I understand the ancient Buddhist injunction aimed at busting this notion said: "If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him."
In the end, the notion of a separate independent entity who has completely died to the bondage of, or to, the false notion that there could actually have been such a one, deserves more than mere reverence to an empty shell now called "Master Teacher."
He/She "deserves" the student's recognition that the one who is no longer there except as an empty reflection in light and sound is and can be no reflection at all except that of
"his own" perfect absence and complete non-image.
In keeping company with such a "one" we remain as that which we have never not been, that "no-thing" appearing, in full and complete joy, as all.
With deepest respect,
Reflectively you,
les collins
Dear Les,
so happy about your post! Thanks for making it clear to the reader.
For me there is no need to kill the Buddha, I couldn't find a real difference between him and me, only illusory ones. But, paradoxically, you (the seeker) need a Buddha to explain and make it crystal-clear that "if you see the Buddha in the road, kill him"! There are really many (illusory) traps on the road.
In the beginning there is ego identified with thoughts, then there is guidance from the Buddha to the recognition of the unity of all forms. All ideas are revealed as just sound appearing as words with meanings. Buddha is not a separate independent entity, the Buddha is Life itself as is the seeker though unaware of it. And if you see a Buddha as a separate entity this is not the Buddha. Therefore you should kill this idea also to see that Buddha is Life and you are Life too.
The post was written for the seeker to encourage him/her to find a guide to understand the illusion, not to project a higher state onto the master. The master's state is as ordinary as yours, he is just taking the higher seat to pull the seeker up, but not the seeker's ego of course.
Relatively speaking: The master as an illusory person appears in you, he is, as the whole world, a manifestation of light and sound appearing in consciousness and not an outer reality in life.
Love to All, Marcus
Thanks for your reply, Marcus. It's a very nice story but I find it so full of holes.
I don't see value in trying to attack it or pick it apart. It would be just be fighting concepts with concepts. No purpose, no gain.
Suffice it to say that it is clear that there is no Buddha, and he has nothing to teach me (who also is not there). I need learn nothing as it could only be about an illusion.
Just smoke in wind.
The apparent worlds and all Buddhas and Master Teachers just come and go in THAT, which can be called by endless names but eludes all names; can be called "what I truly am" but again just tries to guild the lily, this time in the direction of that subtle waft of ego-identification that still floats in the air.
In the end I have nothing to learn and no one to learn from for I am not, nor is he. No one exists who can give me anything nor add one millimeter to my stature for I am not here and have never been. There is no one who could teach me what only a direct glance into the mirror of eternity could reveal: that there is nothing looking back.
Talk to all the Buddhas until you are fully satisfied if that is your pleasure and your joy. All of that is fine and needs to appear to happen as well. All that appears to unfold is perfect and complete, and truly a delight to behold.
I hope I did not sound too patronizing, as that was not my intention. But it seems to "me" that in these circles way too much emphasis is placed on knowledge and understanding as if that was somehow the golden key to eternal bliss. Eternal bliss is all there ever was, and it depends on absolutely nothing.
There was a quote I've always loved from a play called "Harvey" about a gentle soul named Elwood Dowd with an imaginary friend only he could see, who was a 6-foot rabbit. Elwood's sage advice, at one point, was that "In order to be successful in life one must be very, very smart, or very, very pleasant. For years I tried smart. I prefer pleasant."
Love to one in all,
Dear Les,
your comments do not appear "patronizing" at all. You seem to care for me and others. And your comments are very carefully written, as far as I perceive them.
Les: "But it seems to "me" that in these circles way too much emphasis is placed on knowledge and understanding as if that was somehow the golden key to eternal bliss."
Response: In none of my posts was ever intended to convey any knowledge nor an understanding which leads to knowledge. And there is also no golden key to eternal bliss. True understanding is to see the illusory as illusory and not as real. Like you understand a mirage in the desert to be just a mirage and this will stop the search for real water in the mirage, the illusory world could be understood as illusory and the search for happiness in this world will be seen through as illusory. Then the mirage/illusion loses its power to deceive the ego.
And it doesn't help to just know it as knowledge of course. But knowledge about how the illusion is manifested by life in the human mind is a beginning, however not the end. None of those "levels" of understanding are made by the mind, they are part of the sophistication process of life and nothing which the ego could do.
Illusory differences in illusory individuals have to be accepted as illusory not as real, but they have to be accepted! Otherwise this would be a trap too. Illusory does not mean that is does not exist, it exists but not in the way the mind believes it exists. So if the ego (!) just believes that there is no Buddha, no Master and there is nothing to understand, it will be trapped in its belief that it has understood life as best as possible without being aware that this is an incomplete understanding. This was the trap my posts wanted to make the reader aware of.
Every word Life makes us use is just for a certain situation and for a certain apparent individual and question. So your post is about being aware of the trap of staying in the mind and analyzing all and everything in order to "understand" the mystery of life to gain something which is not here and now always. But the post you were responding to was written to someone else and not for you. Every time a trap is explained, in the explanation itself there is another trap. This is the game of the mind, this is the very nature of duality. And it could not be avoided. It only ends with a final, timeless (!) understanding that all known is illusory.
This understanding is not in the mind as knowledge, it is the freedom of knowledge. It either happens or it does not happen. There is no real key to understanding. And understanding is no eternal bliss, understanding/being awake/being aware of the illusoriness of the world is just simple being in the timeless Here and Now. Very ordinary! The ego normally perceives and labels it as boredom. So it is nothing the ego would ever try to achieve, if it knew how it is.
Sometimes in somebody the mind stops in the midst of suffering caused by thoughts which are believed to be real. And this appears as a relieve of suffering. It is called Satori or Awakening or whatever. Only because of the contrast between the deep suffering and the deep peace when mind stops it is perceived by the ego as "eternal bliss" and considered to be something extraordinary. But this is just an experience. If the ego clings to this "bliss" it will be always on the search to repeat this experience. But if it is understood that there was biss because of the absence of suffering, a deeper understanding could happen and the resistance against suffering will fade away and the clinging to bliss will also fade away. What reveals itself through this understanding is just simple and ordinary being, not an experience at all, nothing to achieve, just being.
And this is not an attempt to convey any concept about "enlightenment", it's just the best way I could express what I want to say to guide the illusory ego through the traps of the spiritual search which in the end is also seen as being illusory. But the search could not be avoided by just saying that the world is illusory, it has to be explained to some extend and it has to be understood timelessly beyond doubt.
Love, Marcus
Thanks. I am impressed with a remarkable clarity of mind and depth of understanding in your writings. And I do not imagine that the risk such a comment might go to your head is one that I need trouble myself over.
By the same token, I do not believe that the recognition that there is not an external teacher who exists with the power to give me something, closes me off from the realization that there still remains much that I have yet to understand. But at the same time I do not indulge the notion that understanding in itself is a illustrious guest bearing gifts, but just a tool to assist somewhat in the ongoing inevitable deconstruction of a complex of false beliefs that continues to detain "me" from jumping headlong and fearlessly into that abyss of many names, freedom and liberation being just two.
In your final paragraph above I could not help but sense the presence of some lingering beliefs on your part. The idea that there is some necessity to provide guidance and instruction to the "spiritual ego" on its journey through the forest of illusion has a very noble and hence deeply rooted feel, as though the Absolute Itself is perhaps somewhat lacking or insufficient in some respects as to require "my personal involvement or expertise" to make its quota. Certainly "your" efforts or explanations are no less a "real manifestation" within the illusion than any and all others, and no less an aspect of that apparent "unfoldment of totality" taking place. But in the end [in the timeless "now"] there indeed is truly nothing that is required, or in need of "doing," since that sense of "doing" is just illusory too, as is most certainly the illusion that there could be any ACTUAL evolution or sophistication taking place either.
My perception is that everything ALWAYS changes, but in fact NOTHING has ever moved.
Loving what is, and isn't,
Dear Les,
I agree with what you write. And I am aware of my illusory beliefs also. I don't care about beliefs, they are not wrong, they don't have to disappear, they are seen as utterly illusory, just sound appearing as words with meanings.
Les: "in the end [in the timeless "now"] there indeed is truly nothing that is required, or in need of "doing," since that sense of "doing" is just illusory too"
I am not concerned about the one who understands this, but about the one who only thinks to have understood.
Here it is seen that no-one is doing anything. Here is no-one teaching anything. Here is no-thing really happening, only illusory doing and teaching, which is more an un-teaching, if I understand you rightly, you call it "deconstruction of a complex of false beliefs".
In my daily life it happens that I talk to friends about my and their lives, but I don't talk about "spiritual paths" or something like that. It is just a sharing about daily life issues. And when I explain how I perceive the world and there is nothing to worry about anything, many intuitively understand and trust happens to them step by step. But there are also some "spiritual people" and they do not understand what I try to say. I suppose they have too many concepts about spirituality and "enlightenment" and what it is and what it is not and what a true master should say or not say and so on and almost every word is misunderstood. A single word leads to so much confusion...
For me Aliveness is all there is. There are no real ambitions to make anyone "understand". But I care for others while not being worried about them. My children for example: They are illusory, yes, but they exist, however not in the manner the mind believes them to exist. And I care for them without being worried about them, for I am clearly seeing beyond doubt that they are Life and Life takes care of itself in every illusory moment.
And yet here is just watching the conversation happening between Marcus and Les and "I" (whatever that my be) am surprised myself about what is apparently written by life through this illusory body. Every word which is written here has to be written, whether I like it or not.
Love, Marcus
Dear Marcus,
It has been a remarkable event to connect with you on such a meaningful and profound level in such a few short typewritten exchanges. I feel I have new friend who mirrors my feelings and understandings to an amazing degree.
I see our commonality of feeling as just further evidence of the purely ephemeral nature of apparent separation, both in our lives individually, and in All of life actually.
I believe we have a lot of gratitude to share.
Scatter Joy,
Much Love,
Dear Les,
gratitude to you, my friend!
And here is also much gratitude to Guruji Dr. Vijai S. Shankar whose illusory care did not allow "me" to fall in the trap of totally denying existence of the illusory world.
Quote Dr. Shankar: "Illusory does not mean it does not exist, it exists but not in the manner the mind thinks it exists."
Love to All, Marcus
Hello Marcus,
Your comment about the illusion existing reminds me of something that came up recently in the weekly non-duality group in which I play the role of facilitator. I referred to the universe as a "real illusion," which resulted in a fair amount of laughter and the question "How can an illusion be real?" Well, I said, an illusion is something which appears to exist. If there were no appearance there would of course be no illusion. And since the universe appears to exist, it must therefore be a "real illusion."
Calling the universe an illusion, however, always begs the question "to who or what is it an illusion or appearance?" Just calling it an illusion without addressing the next question fails to go to the heart of the issue. That in which the illusion appears is that which can appear to be impacted by events/objects within the illusion: none other than the illusory dream character himself. And when that dream character falls away into the transient state known as deep dreamless sleep, it is more than coincidental that the entire "infinite, substantial universe" ceases without a trace as well. The paradox, of course, is that the "entire universe" can only finally "be real" or "seem real" within the imaginary dream character's mind, in which it cannot "exist," but in which it can occasionally "appear."
For us then, these imaginary dream creatures, I guess this dream is real, at least for all intents and purposes. At least, until it's not.
Love to One in All,
Les: “That in which the illusion appears is that which can appear to be impacted by events/objects within the illusion: none other than the illusory dream character himself.“
Response: The world is a world of thoughts. Thoughts are sound appearing as words with meanings. The ego is a thought, too, but somehow experiences itself as being the subject of the experience of apparent objects. To the ego the world appears real, meaning: objects appear as permanent and seem to be controllable by thoughts which the ego claims as "my thoughts", "my spoken words", "my deeds".
If it happens that the illusoriness of the world is understood, the ego “sophisticates“ spontaneously into the “witness“. The witness perceives the world as illusory. The witness has a different perspective than the ego: the witness perceives the apparent “subject of experience“, the “I“ or “Ego“, as just a thought too, i.e. sound.
So the ego believes to be the subject of experienced objects, whereas the witness perceives the ego as an object, too. Therefore, in my understanding, it is not the illusory dream character which perceives the illusion as illusion. And it is only the illusory dream character, i.e. the ego, which could be impacted by illusory events/objects, not the witness! The witness is totally untouched by any appearance and yet not separate from anything at all. Only the ego reacts, the witness watches even the reactions of the ego.
Les: The paradox, of course, is that the "entire universe" can only finally "be real" or "seem real" within the imaginary dream character's mind, in which it cannot "exist," but in which it can occasionally "appear."
Response: The universe does not appear in the dream character‘s mind. The dream character is also an appearance in consciousness in form of thoughts. The apparent sum of thoughts appears as the mind. The mind is nothing but an appearance in consciousness in form of sounds appearing as thoughts with meanings.
Consciousness is the first illusion of the Real. The Real is pure light and it reflects itself as reflected light. The first illusion of the Real is consciousness and in this appears the whole illusory manifestation, to the witness as illusory, to the ego as real. So consciousness or the witness is also not real, because it comes and goes, for example in deep sleep. The Real is permanent and unchanging. An yet, the Real appears in form of the illusion which is always changing and never permanent, there is no real separation between the Real and the Illusion.
Thank you, Peter, to introduce me to the works of Wei Wu Wei. Have found profound statements in his books. For example:
Quote: Wei Wu Wei, Introduction to "Ask the Awakened“:
"The methods of the Masters are illustrated by the saying: “To acquire understanding at the hands of others is to close the gates of self-enlightenment.“ Nothing could be more clearly or tersely expressed, and the explanation, of course, is that the understanding thus acquired is necessarily objective understanding. In fact my understanding is valueless to you, quite necessarily so, even it be the correct understanding. (...) this understanding ... cannot be transferred or transmitted. It can only be pointed at, and you have to find your own way to it yourself.“
For me Dr. Shankar's books have been a reliable guide to find my own direct understanding of life. Direct understanding is wisdom, objective understanding is just knowledge. A deep enquiry into the mind has to happen for attaining direct understanding. Direct understanding reveals itself as soon as all objective understanding is understood to be illusory knowledge only. The illusory has to be understood as illusory and not as real.
And I want to add: The personal meeting with Dr. Shankar was even more important than just reading the books. Don't ever miss the opportunity to meet an enlightened being, if it happens.
www.acadun.com
Marcus Stegmaier