Monthly Archives: June 2009

Business World – 15 Jun 2009 – Business Conduct – The Heart of the Matter

“Ethics and religion must not stay at home when we go to work.”
— Achille Silvestrini, Cardinal of the Roman Curia

-Meera Seth
————————————
Raghuveer Vats felt like a blender on pulse mode. Varsha Nigam Dorai had just left his office after dropping a hateful bombshell, and the flying splinters were tossing him around; that Varsha was also the wife of his senior vice-president, Tyaagi Dorai.

Varsha, whom he had known for many years, had said, “It is Tyaagi. He is never home before midnight and always claims to have meetings with clients and overseas visitors. Ours is a large joint family, I am the eldest and the live-in daughter-in-law. I manage the entire household and run my dance academy, which keeps me busy round-the-clock. Busy also means that I am focusing less on anxieties and worries. Therefore, it has taken me three years to convert worry into suspicion into action. I fear Tyaagi is having an affair…”

And after some more explanation, she said, “It could be a person called Saarangi… Is there someone by that name in your company?”

Raghuveer’s mind registered a vague recognition of the name, but he was badly shaken. Tyaagi? Of all people! Then he had valiantly even defended, “I work very closely with Tyaagi, Varsha, I would know.” But Varsha said, “You stole my line Veer. Those were my words, ‘I should know, I am his wife!’ Nonsense, Veer!”

But Varsha’s words did not make sense. Tyaagi was not just a terrific manager. He was ‘inner circle’ — part of the core strategy team.

Two days later, he asked Tyaagi to join him for dinner at Konkan Café. Without much preamble, Raghuveer came to the point, “I believe you are having an affair with someone at work.” Tyaagi gasped but only briefly. Then he said, “Where did you get that impression?”

Raghuveer, or RV as he was known, took the menu card from the manager, and said, “We will call you as soon as we are ready, ok?” And then to Tyaagi, “You and I are too old to play cat-and-mouse games, Tyaagi. how I know, where I got the impression from… never mind. Let us come to the point. We are men, and we know what we are capable of; interestingly, we are also aware of what we are not capable of, that is honesty in situations like this. This won’t do at Gavinn. I am sorry that after so many years of great team work, we will have to part ways.”

Tyaagi was taken aback. “Part ways?” he asked, not even sure he was hearing right. “But what has that to do with anything? Besides, it is not even an affair in the real sense…” RV was angry now. “‘In the real sense?’ What does that mean? Anyway, look my relationship with you is that of an MD and colleague. So, I have no interest in your personal definitions. I am concerned with the business of Gavinn and that interest directs me to take a view of your conduct.” Tyaagi said, “I am sorry. but listen to me, it is not what you think. I am a married guy. I have kids. I don’t need all this, you know…”

RV said, “There are men who stop lying when they are found out. You are a rare breed. I have had a long chat with Saarangi. Now tell me…”

Tyaagi was shocked, but said, “I am simply friendly with her…” RV could bear it no more. He said, “If you want to talk, it has to be about corrective action, not the details of your relationship. So, either you have to leave Gavinn or I will have to ask you to.”

Tyaagi could not understand, “Why? Why do I have to go? How has my personal life got anything to do with my work? Am I not delivering? And I don’t think it is sufficient ground for terminating my employment! You are making an issue of something quite commonplace; we are consenting adults, so what is the problem?”

“The problem?” said RV. “When a man changes his script on being caught, or pretends none of that happened, such a man is clearly one who lacks conviction. When a person dons two different profiles, one for the day and one for the dark, I would not trust my business in his hands. I do not know which is the real Tyaagi that works for Gavinn!”

Tyaagi breathed deeply. “Alright! Let us not get theatrical!” he said in a low angry tone. “If it bothers you so much, I will tell her to leave Gavinn!”

“On cue, Visaka and Vishesh exchanged a disturbed glance. They were in fact not very far from that situation. Vishesh had sunk a huge amount into the India business.”

That made RV furious. He said, “It is not about who leaves or stays, it is about protecting the integrity of a structure, a system that we all subscribe to. They are as simple as road safety rules. It does get inconvenient now and then, but then it is not about convenience, it is about common and greater good. Nobody forces you to get married, raise a family. But once you do, it is ‘till death do us part’, which incidentally is not a romantic notion but about responsibility. Now, as an organisation, Gavinn is part of that very society with its inconvenient rules. And what is good for the goose is good for Gavinn as well.”

Tyaagi now realised he was talking to a mad man. So he said, “Let me think about this. Let us meet again next week.”

“Not next week Tyaagi. Two days is all I have for you,” said RV as he left the restaurant.

Next morning, HR head Kaushal Santrup walked into RV’s office and shut the door behind him. “Tyaagi has sent us a letter from his lawyer that seems like a preamble to a lawsuit for unfair termination of employment!” Kaushal announced. RV shrugged, “I knew he would. Fools and cowards respond like that.”

Kaushal: We will have to fight it. Tell me your stance so that I can develop my defence.

RV: We are not ‘defending’ anything. He can do that. We have a stance and we are committed to it.

Kaushal: It is also Saarangi; she alleges sexual harassment. She could well be doing this to pre-empt being sacked herself. Whatever her ploy, fact remains that since Tyaagi is in a position of power, and his partner is much junior, it could well be construed that he is misusing his power!”

RV: I am not interested in putting modern day labels on this episode. This is about irresponsible behaviour, which will hold true in any age. And Gavinn will not subscribe to it.

Kaushal: Listen, she is accusing a senior manager. She alleges he brought pressure on her to reciprocate that there was no volition from her side.

RV: Why are you wasting time on this? All this is nonsense. He brought pressure on her’! Look Kaushal, she made the choice to toe his line. She could well have made a different choice and taken the management’s help. Period. We have been very supportive and helpful always and there is not one lady here at Gavinn who can fault us. I am not diminishing Saarangi’s words, but these are two-faced people. And both should go.

Kaushal: And if Saarangi alleges it is sexual harassment, then?

RV: Then she will have to give me a non-helpless explanation for why she did not seek management support. At one level, it is misuse of power by a person in authority and on top of that both are using the law as a fig leaf. It is being assumed that the junior cannot refuse, that she was ‘influenced’. Then the law says, “Oh but if she was ‘influenced’, it is not exactly consent, but a case of harassment!” But who is to prove consent or not? Then what happens? Then the case will weigh down on the male partner heavily. Therefore, this sexual harassment is after all, nonsense. I am not even considering it.

Kaushal: Maybe we need to issue a caveat to employees on workplace liaisons…

RV: You interpret me hastily, Kaushal. This is about married people straying. He is guilty of decimating the home responsibility, and she for encroaching on what does not accrue to her. As an organisation we have to subscribe to the social framework. If as an organisation I can request consumers to deface and destroy mineral water bottles to prevent reuse, not buy pirated CDs, recycle paper, not use plastics, to enable our market environment, then can they not reciprocally ask organisations to save the moral environment? Tyaagi will have to go.

Kaushal: Maybe we must slow down. We have just yesterday received the clearance for the plant in Ahmednagar. Tyaagi has been negotiating with the government. Could we not soft pedal till that gets done?

RV (surprised): Kaushal, I am a leader, not a fixer or broker. If this deal gets sticky, so be it. But endorsing betrayal, valueless conduct, irresponsibility? Never. The home/family is an operating unit to be accorded the same respect. If the head of the home business unit cannot lead well and enable his profit centre, how am I to believe he can work for the benefit of his organisation’s business unit? It is easily extrapolated!

Kaushal: Given the times, such severity may be extreme…

RV: Tyaagi is not some management trainee. It is clearly the wrong example for a senior member of an organisation to set. Importantly, Gavinn has to always be an organisation where women feel safe. The MD’s vision has to be clear on this.

Kaushal: We could look at how others handled this: Teffer transferred its senior director out of the country to get him off a scandal he got into.

RV: What Teffer does is Teffer’s choice. What Gavinn does will be driven by our values. We must never run organisations to ‘look’ good. Covering up, pushing under the carpet, calling in PR… these are ego-driven exercises, born out of faith in falsehoods. I will manage my business and the careers of my managers. But they have to come with values. If their values break, they must go to ‘Start’. Life is not all ladders…

Kaushal: Times have changed, RV. There’s growing evidence that morals are on the low in organisations, and naturally management is either unsure or unwilling to take a stance.

RV: I am neither unsure nor unwilling. Besides, it is the very nature of time to change as it is of water to be wet. Hardly reason to recalibrate values! But some things should not change, the basic edifice on which we build homes should never change. If it does, orgnisations won’t have a foundation for survival. Now I need to work … Don’t forget our 4 pm meeting.

There it ended for the time being. but outside the sound-proofed walls of Raghuveer Vats’ office, the buzz of discussions was mounting. How news travels or leaks, is difficult to flowchart. “Why is RV being adamant?” “Seriously! What anyone does with his personal life should be nobody’s business.” “Seems very harsh a step. Why sack the guy? RV must be deranged…” “What a severe man!” “Tyaagi is dead. Indian law on sexual harassment will nail him any which way.”

Kaushal met Teerath Jain, his next in command, to discuss the letter from Tyaagi’s lawyer, which was a sort of pre-emptive legal opinion that clarified his rights and obligations.

Kaushal: India’s sexual harassment law rests on ‘absence of consent’. Only then is it construed to be. Other countries’ laws go further, where if someone is in a position of authority, then any sexual relationship is harassment. But RV does not even want to hear about it. He says, “Values don’t need the sanctity of law. What is wrong is wrong. Period.”

Teerath: He has a point, but unfortunately when you are dealing with contractual employment, you have to work through the law. I can hardly see myself saying with conviction: ‘Tyaagi, you have to go, because I think what you did is inappropriate.’

Lunch tables at Gavinn saw more huddled heads. “Say, is this code of conduct usually documented?” “Yes, it is supposed to be annexed to your contract. Many MNCs do this.” “But listen, if he is wants to file a suit, on what possible basis can he do so?” “Company will allege it tantamounts to harassment, while he will resort to the flimsy Indian definition and claim it was consensual. Finished. He wins.” “Absolutely, he will simply say that company cannot police personal life! Then what can we do?” “RV will put his tough foot down, and chant his pet mantra about unwritten commitment to the code of common conduct, which include the adherance to social norms. Simple. I can even hear him chant now…” “RV is a clear-headed guy… Tyaagi has no hope in hell. Legally, he may wrangle victory, but in the press he will look like a fool.”

Elsewhere, Teerath was in discussion with Kaushal and RV, “The Indian law is set out in a case called Vishaka versus State of Rajasthan, where the court set out guidelines to be adopted at all workplaces. There is no mention of ‘consensual sexual relationships’. That implies, in India, consensual sexual relationships between adults is not illegal. However, I say an Indian company can and should go further and prohibit this when people are in authority, as is Tyaagi. And I do think RV you are on solid ground. You are a man for policy, plus you have terrific conviction. Besides, we must push for a change because the Indian law only sets out a minimum standard, which is not only outdated but also dreadfully nebulous. It is essential to have a more rigorous definition of sexual harassment in workplaces and this prevents subtler forms of gender discrimination.”

Raghuveer heard him out keenly, while Kaushal added: “Look at the kind of domestic situations that arise daily. Right here at Gavinn. young trainees have married and divorced in eight months. Alcoholism, abusive conduct, domestic violence, and now extra-marital affairs. These kinds of moral delinquencies are present to some degree in many homes.
Where will you draw the line? And how many will you get to know about? Can we ask all these men and women to quit?

“Why only men? The husband of one of our brand managers has complained that she has too many late night meetings and parties and their home life is derailing. Do I take that as an official complaint against her professional self or against her personal self? If Tyaagi’s case counts, then this one too does, no? You think a man is setting a bad example having an affair. But you don’t think the lady manager is setting a bad example neglecting her home? And then what do I tell her boss Vijay Cherian who asked me, ‘If she fails to meet her objectives, can I call her husband and report? No? Then why is he calling us?’ So, where will you draw the line RV?’

RV: Interesting arguments; but the case of Tyaagi is clear as day. The issue gets bad when one of them is already married, and break social convention. I have asked you this several times: Is an organisation not responsible for society’s values being maintained? For the upkeep of a moral standard in society? After all, an organisation is part of that very society. Isn’t that why we restrict cigarette and liquor companies from advertising? People will protest — it is in the nature of people to resist hindrance. But finally who is the watchdog? Organisations have to draw the line and make known these lines.”

Kaushal: Pardon me if I come across as argumentative RV. if Tyaagi was having an affair with a lady outside Gavinn, would you have even known? There is also the view that society itself has changed its stance on such things as extra-marital affairs. It is rampant, so how much can an organisation do? I think a point can be made to the employee that we are disturbed by his conduct. Then it is for the errant manager to take a call. He will then know the viewpoint of his management, and he cannot get abrasive at least, if he expects his career to move upwards.

Or if it was interfering with work… Then there is a case for action. I keep wondering, where do we draw the line?

RV: Why does everything have to have lines and boundaries and definitions? What ever happened to common sense? Why can we not have black and white, yes or not-yes, can or cannot? These grey zones are really nothing, but our own confused sense of democracy.

I agree, the organisation cannot go about sleuthing. But here I am, employing 20 hours of a man’s day to run my business. Does it not become Gavinn’s responsibility? When I hire a man, I hire his whole family’s support. That is how I see life. Maybe your vision is different, so I cannot even tell you you are wrong. You tell me how do I shut this window that shows me a different perspective from yours?

Organisation that have a passion for being value-driven will know right from wrong. And I say this, even if his performance is good, work unaffected, top drawer deliveries; but when his subordinates know he is married, and is having an extra-marital affair, is this good or not good for the value edifice that the organisation stands on? Is it not affecting the fabric with which we weave our businesses everyday? Does he not compromise his seniority and authority?”

Kaushal, then asked softly, “Yet, would you have saved the marriage by sacking him, RV?”

RV replied, “I am not saving any marriage. I am trying to save the values that are being assaulted by his behaviour. Values is the air I spray abundantly in my workplace for people to inhale. He is polluting it with an attitude that I see as unwholesome. That is all.”

Kaushal was satisfied, “Fair, but allow me to suggest a framework for this: Follow full process; set up a sexual harassment committee; give everyone concerned a right to be heard; and then terminate with reasons. You will be well within your rights then to say, “Gavinn strongly believes in social norms. Our code of conduct derives from society and breach of social convention is breach of organisational code of conduct.”

Raghuveer stood up and shook Kaushal’s hand, “Fair!” And then, “But remember, this is not about sexual harassment, but dishonest indulgence. That is really my point!”

The Illusionless Man: Some Fantasies and Meditations on Disillusionment – Allen Wheelis

The Signal

Once upon a time there was a man who wanted to be a writer. Even as a child he wrote fairy tales, which his mother thought excellent but otherwise were not much read. In high school he yearned after girls but was afraid of them and learned that a book, to be significant, must have a message. As it happened he had one: his first novel, written at seventeen in a dun-colored YMCA room during a winter of bitter loneliness, re?ported that love is a bridge. In college he studied philosophy; became, in turn, a Marxist, existentialist, pacifist, and militant organizer for SNCC; and wrote a utopia announcing that narcissism is overcome by sacrifice. At a voter? registration drive in Mississippi he met Eloise, a school teacher from Wisconsin who seemed to know all his passions and secrets, and married her under a magnolia tree on a day when seventeen students from Union Theological were forced to drink castor oil and driven naked out of Selma. Eloise was practical and strong-willed and whisked him back to Madison where he became vice-president her father’s cheese factory. The following year a second novel disclosed that true love dies and that loneliness, though it may have respite, has no end. “I’m not a cheese?maker,” he said, “I’m a writer”; quit the business; and wrote a play in six acts called The Road, with a cast of forty-seven and a playing time of six hours, which made the point that seeking is better than finding. Divorced, penniless, still unpublished, he stuck with his chosen vocation. A poem in free verse of thirteen thousand lines asserted creativity to be the principle of life-perhaps of existence in general, for he found an analogue in the orbit of electrons, the trajectory of stars. Both his parents died of cancer; he lived alone, forgot his vitamins, became thin, and wrote a monograph declaring that creativity is in fact impossible. His name was Rainer, and he marked his works with the sign of a fox.

Everything he wrote was rejected; all his messages stayed in his trunk; and his final work-an autobiography in three volumes asserting that everything, especially the writing of books, is absurd-was not even submitted to a publisher. He himself wrote the review, found flaws, but pronounced it a masterpiece, then burned the review, the autobiography, and the trunk.

Still he lived, and ate, and one day being particularly hungry he looked through job notices and saw “Writer Wanted.” What the hell, he thought, so long as it pays.

The address led him through tunnels, past factories, warehouses, across railroad tracks to a huge building with a towering chimney, a column of black smoke, a muted hum, and a curious sweet smell. A wall of blackened brick rose up from the very edge of the street, unbroken for fifty feet, to a row of tiny windows. At regular intervals gargoyles extended open mouths from the red tile roof: griffins, snakes, satyrs, dragons–all convulsed in silent, stony shrieks. There was no sidewalk; Rainer walked in the street, dodged motorcycles, looked up at the black wall, until he came to a small door. A bronze plaque announced “Mack Confections, Inc.” Here the hum was louder, like a cataract deep in the earth. He hesitated, looked without purpose at his watch, glanced up the now empty street, entered.

In a dusty office he was lulled by the roar, was almost asleep when a tall, heavy man with red hair, in a pink shirt with open collar, burst into the room and attacked him with an interview. “Can you spell?” the man shouted.

“Yes. “

“Spell ‘fate.’ ” Rainer passed this test without difficulty. “All right, my boy,” the man said, rubbing his beefy hands, “give us a bit of sententious wisdom. You know what ‘sententious’ means?”

“Yes.”

“Out with it them.”

The bloodshot pig-eyes were no more than three inches away; the nose was neon; the hair stood on end; the breath was pure bourbon. Rainer turned away. A torn print of Botticelli’s “Birth of Venus” flapped on the dusty wall. “Absurd!” Rainer murmured.

“Excellent!” the man roared. “You’re hired.”

“To do what?”

“This is a fortune-cookie factory; you write the for?tunes. “

The man was Mr. Mack, the owner, who took Rainer into a long, high cavern of a room, past vats of flour and mixing machines. A man measuring anise raised a hand in greeting; a pretty girl pouring sugar wiped her forehead and smiled. The roar grew louder; there was a clicking and a stirring, and now a huge belt carried masses of dough be?tween rollers; in a sheet ten feet wide the dough passed onto a conveyor of shimmering steel balls between which thousands of whirling knives suddenly rose up and cut the sheet into oval fragments that danced like leaves on a stream and flowed on into a great machine which was clicking and clacking and spewing out ribbons of green paper. High up on this machine was a dais with a keyboard, and there sat a wretched Asian darting panicky glances over his shoulder as he hunted and pecked at the keys. On the other side of the machine the leaves of dough emerged, each bearing an inch of green tape; and now, suddenly, ten thousand steel fingers reached out of the trembling stream, folded the dough over the fortunes, and gently bent them double just as the river disappeared into an oven.

Mr. Mack picked up a streamer of tape, read, and exploded. “You’re fired!” he yelled, grabbing the Asian by the shirt and pulling him off the stool. Rainer looked at the tape still spewing from the machine: Freenship is the tresur of man, it announced, and repeated it every inch.

“You sonofabitch!” Mr. Mack yelled, shaking him, “You’re ruining me. Get the hell out of here!” The man fled. Mr. Mack banged his fist on the stop button, and the press fell silent though the river of cookies still flowed. “Stop the Line!” he yelled, but no one heard, and he yelled ten more times and was quite hoarse, his face purple, before the line came to rest, and the room was quiet. He mounted the dais, glared about and mopped his face with a red handkerchief.

“Now I’ll show you how to do it,” he said to Rainer. “C’mere. This is Tall Betsy,” he said, patting the machine, “a lady and temperamental.” He sat at the keyboard, ex?tended his arms like a pianist, threw back his head and dosed his eyes. A group of curious workers gathered. After a few moments succubus to the muse Mr. Mack lurched forward, typing, and the green tape sputtered forth: Capital lies behind your eyes; invest it in the common stock of work. “Like that,” he said shyly, standing up and tearing off the tape. His face was a mixture of cunning and simplicity, of ruthlessness and sentimentality. “Only make it more goddamned interesting,” he added, regaining his shouting voice. “Anybody finishing a Chinese meal is Unsatisfied, but don’t know what they want. You give it to ‘em! Something to wake them up. That weak tea won’t do it. You do it. Sit down!” Rainer sat and Mr. Mack pressed on his shoulders with both hands: “Go!” he shouted.

Rainer brushed away the hands. “Give me room,” he said.

Looking out over the crowd he saw a girl of such somber beauty in her wide still eyes, such store of passion in her broad soft mouth, that he felt the fish hook in his throat and the great mushroom cloud blowing up in his heart. He caught himself in time, grinned at her, turned to the key?board and wrote: A pretty girl is the mirage of love on the desert of loneliness. Traveler beware! The press coughed, jerked, gave out a puff of smoke, then clickety-clacked and spewed out the tape.

Mr. Mack caught it up instantly, his lips moving as he read.

“Excellent!” he roared. “Excellent!” and pressed a button marked 10,000, which directed the machine to print that many. “Hey! you peasants!” he called, throwing the tape, “Look. We got a writer!” The crowd read and laughed, all except the pretty girl who looked sad and puzzled. “Now back to work!” Mr. Mack yelled. The press clickety-clacked; the conveyor system moved; the leaves passed into the machine and emerged, each with its mess?age of mirage; the steel fingers folded them, and into the oven they went. Mr. Mack rubbed his beefy hands. “That’ll cut the taste of chowmein,” he yelled, clapping Rainer on the shoulder. “Keep up the good work, my boy.”

Rainer examined Tall Betsy: a typewriter keyboard, with additional keys marked “go,” “stop,” “hold,” “protem,” “1,” “10,” “1,000,” “5,000,” et cetera, up to “100,?000.” So what to write? He saw children starving in India, soldiers being cut down by machine-gun fire, Jews in concentration camps, plagues, purges, inquisitions, witch hunts, and along the Appian Way an unending vista of crucified slaves. Tragedy is the condition of man: deny it if you will with blindness, transcend it only with laughter. Tall Betsy hiccoughed; Rainer pushed the “go” button. “The style is new,” he said to the machine, “but you’ll get used to it. Give it a thousand.” Now he imagined himself an old man, dying alone in a rented room. No second chance; it’s now or’ not at all. That’s worth 20,000, he thought, and Tall Betsy seemed to agree. He laughed, I’m going to like this job.

And indeed he did: his writing no longer had a message, it was a message; he settled down to a pithy pessimism and for the first time in his life began to enjoy his vocation.

The pretty girl was Delia, who added sugar to the dough; her husband was Theo, who measured out the anise. They were drawn to Rainer, as he to them; they invited him home, took him hiking, picnicking, to concerts. He took them to restaurants, nightclubs, casinos; they be?came a trio. Delia loved birds–finches and mynahs, parakeets and canaries, toucans and starlings-kept hundreds in all kinds of cages, would turn them loose on weekends, stand in her garden in a vortex of color, a detached smile on her face, hand raised with grain, eyes unseeing of this world but seeing in the beating of wings some past or future, some remoteness where none could follow and she was quite alone. Theo smoked a pipe, had a library of Oriental religion, and was researching a life of St. Francis as the founder of Zen. He played the recorder, warmed the milk for the tempted cat, solved chess problems but avoid?ed the game, studied butterflies but never put one on a pin.

Within a few weeks after Rainer’s arrival Mack Confections, Inc., was in the midst of a boom. Standing orders were increased and new orders arrived by the hour; production was stepped up; new hands were hired. Mr. Mack was gleeful, hopped about on one foot and then the other, speeding up the production line, peering over his book?keeper’s shoulder, wetting his lips, shouting encouragement to exhausted workers, counting his profits. The taste of the cookies had not changed; it was the tang of the mes?sage that was making the difference. Red-and-white trucks brought great sacks of letters praising the style and pith of the fortunes, and quite a few, also, denouncing the author as degenerate; people in restaurants sent compliments, not to the chef but the writer, and three men with moustaches sent challenges to duel. There was a sudden clamor for the writer’s name. Anonymous, Rainer became a celebrity, was quoted by columnists, invited to address luncheons, rumored to be Russian; Herb Caen said he was a Beatie. The Pope issued a provisional excommunication, in case he were Catholic; the D.A.R. accused him of undermining American institutions; but the people, as Theo put it, “ate him up.” Rainer withheld his name but added the sign of the fox to his fortunes.

The three friends would sit in restaurants and watch the breaking of cookies and reading of fortunes. Most people reacted as if it were their own particular lives upon which comment was made. They would laugh, become thoughtful, embarrassed, sometimes disturbed or angry. One night in Trader Vie’s a middle-aged woman kept ordering cookies, not eating but searching as if for some particular for?tune, some ray of hope perhaps; and not finding it apparently, for when she was at last led away, weeping, there was left on the floor a pyramid of broken cookies reaching to the table top.

Delia was fascinated, often became so curious that she would ask of a stranger what he had read. “I don’t understand it,” she said one evening in a Polynesian cafeteria. Across the room in the dim light two young heads bent lovingly together; the woman seemed to be pleading, the man holding back; the woman broke a cookie, read her fortune, seemed miffed; the man read and laughed; they left abruptly. Delia went to their table and brought back the fortune: In twenty minutes you will be pregnant! “See what trouble you make!” Delia said. Near them an old man ate alone with palsied hands, absently slurping tea in rheumy reverie; when finally he broke his cookie and read the fortune he reeled as if from a blow, knocked a spoon to the flour, shuffled across the room and out the door. Delia went instantly to his table. Nothing in life is certain, but that it comes to a bad end. “You’re simply terrible!” she said.

“In the past,” Rainer said, “nothing but rejection slips; now I write the slips, and nothing comes back. And since reading is oral, how appropriate to publish in food.”

“What are you trying to do?” Delia said, “destroy all hope?”

“The binding is so sweet,” Rainer said with a bow, “the message can afford to be bitter.” “But people can take only so much,” Theo said mildly.

“I don’t understand it,” Delia repeated. “Why would anyone read such things?”

“If you find out,” Rainer said, “why you, feeling as you do, read them, then you’ll know.”

Months passed and the Fox was famous, but declined interviews, avoided reporters, would not be photographed. When newspapermen lined up at the front door he left by the rear. Mr. Mack wanted to cash in on the notoriety, arranged interviews, television appearances, was furious at Rainer’s intransigence; but made peace suddenly when it appeared that the incognito was good business. Everybody was wondering about the Fox, writing about him; his identity became a national guessing game. Mack Confections had been one of seventeen fortune-cookie factories; now there were but four, and the other three were trembling. One by one they collapsed or switched to dry cereals and comic books. The price of cookies went higher and higher, and Mack Confections became a world monopoly, supplying even Hong Kong and Peking. A staff of students translated the fortunes into forty-seven languages.

Mr. Mack became rich but refused to raise wages, said he couldn’t afford it, held the union to the old contract, complained constantly about taxes and employed a staff of lawyers to be suing the government at all times. One morning after a year Rainer went into Mr. Mack’s office.

“I want more money,” he said.

“I don’t have it, you know,” Mr. Mack said nervously, wetting his lips.

“The government takes every penny-you must know that, . . . don’t you? Still you’re a good worker. Actually I’d thought of giving you a raise-if someone works hard, is loyal, I simply want to reward him. Can’t help it . . . just the kind of guy I am, I guess. So I . . . I’m going to raise you . . . to eighty-five dollars a week. How about that!” He beamed, was so touched by his generosity he began to cry.

“I want a hundred thousand a year,” Rainer said, “and fifty per cent of the profits.”

“You’re not only crazy, you’re impertinent. I won’t stand it.”

“Suit yourself, Mack,” Rainer said, showing him a sheaf of job offers.

“I can get it elsewhere. Those factories we knocked off . . . all of them want to come back to life.”

So Mr. Mack gave in and Rainer took a fourteen-room penthouse on Telegraph Hill, had a cellar full of French wine, ordered suits from London, shirts from Florence, shoes from Zurich; drove a Ferrari and a Facel Vega. Hollywood wanted him in movies; he was offered a fellowship to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, invited to address the combined philosophy departments of Harvard, Yale, and Brandeis. He said no to everything, spent evenings with his two friends, would pick up a girl on his way home, come to work at noon with a yawn and a smile.

One afternoon Theo climbed Tall Betsy, lighted his pipe, sat behind his friend. Without security life ends in panic; without risk, in mechanization. Rainer pushed the button marked 5,000; Tall Betsy clickety-clacked, and the green tapes wafted onto the shimmering leaves of dough. Theo laid his hand on Rainer’s shoulder: “Why don’t you settle down, get married?” Pleasure is the referent of value, Rainer wrote, and ordered a thousand. “I’m worried about you,” Theo said. “A man, like a tree, needs roots. You’re so detached, so alone. Too much fun, not enough love. You stand outside of life and laugh.” Truth is not enough, laughter is essential. “You can’t go on like this; something will happen.” “A bolt of lightning?” Rainer asked. “You can curse God a while,” Theo said, “but make a career of it . . . yes, lightning. I’m afraid for you.”

“Ah Theo, you would tremble for my welfare, but it’s my morals that offend you.”

Another time, a warm drowsy afternoon, it was Delia who sat beside him; from the grimy skylight far above them a shaft of yellow sun, teeming with motes, fell on her golden hair. For the experienced actor promptings of despair are cues for laughter. “Can’t you write something sweet?” Delia said. “Just once? What’s the matter with you? Think it would ruin your style? Move over!” She took over the keyboard: Love creates its own reality, and so is beyond illusion.

“No, damn it!” Rainer said, and hit the stop button. “You’ll blow the fuses. Tall Betsy is used to me, won’t take those lies.” He reversed the press, canceled her message, wrote, Hope is the divining rod which dips to the sea of illusions.

“I don’t understand you,” she said. “Why do you take so much away from people?” Beware the questions of women: they say “Why?” but mean “Stop doing it!” “Don’t make fun of me,” Delia said, suddenly pleading. “I’m your friend, am terribly fond of you. I simply want to understand you.” Rainer kissed her, swung back to the key?board: Beware the woman who wants to understand you; she understands you already, wants now to change you. “You’re simply terrible,” Delia said.

Once it happened that Theo was away, and Delia and Rainer spent a day together, swam in the ocean, waltzed on tile parquetry under the moon, drank tequila in a flamenco cellar, and when they got home Delia wouldn’t stop, put on a record of Edith Piaf, brought out champagne. She threw open the cages, and the birds flew screeching around her head. “Come dance with me,” she said, but he refused. “Is Don Juan of the cookie factory worn out from his conquests? No more zip, eh?” She kicked off her shoes and danced with the circling birds, round and round in a flashing vortex of feathers, spilling champagne, pulling up her dress for high kicks, until suddenly she collapsed.

She woke to a terrible stab of guilt but found she was fully dressed, covered with blankets; Rainer had put the birds in their cages, turned off the lights, and gone home. She got up with a hangover, but happy, and went to work; Rainer waved from his dais, and she smiled. In the after?noon she climbed up beside him. “I’m so happy,” she said, “and so grateful. You’re not the opportunist you pretend to be. You put loyalty above pleasure . . . or you would have stayed last night.”

“You’re mixed up, sweetie. You were fiercely seductive, and I wanted to stay, you’re right about that. But wrong about everything else. I put nothing above pleasure. The greater pleasure is simply with the three of us, the fun we have. No sacrifice. Sorry, . . . I mean no slight to your considerable charms.” Faced with incompatible pleasures, choose the keener.

In time Mr. Mack became the seventh wealthiest man in the world, lived in a castle with a moat, had thirteen servants, one wife, two children, three mistresses; but was not happy. He became ever more irritable, fumed about the production line, complaining, scolding, losing his temper. “Oh you blockhead!” he said to Theo one day, “that’s too much anise. How long’ve you been on this job? . . . My God! You’re fired. Get the hell outa here,” and in an upsurge of petulance slapped Theo in the face. “You’re overwrought,” Theo said, “better rest a bit.” “None of your lip, young man’” Mr. Mack said, slapping him again. “I’ll have your skin.”

“What’s the matter with Mack?” Theo asked Rainer. “Bad conscience,” Rainer said. “He doesn’t look well,” Theo said; “I worry about him.” “Well, don’t,” Rainer said, and wrote: Bastards need to suffer; it helps them stand themselves.

Bad luck befell Mr. Mack. Mrs. Mack left him, tied up the community property with injunctions, estranged their daughter. His teenage son, driving drunk, had a head-on collision, suffered a broken back, killed the other driver. A disaffected worker with a shotgun left pellets in Mr. Mack’s lung, powder burns on his face. He became thin, pale, explosive. Only to Theo did he feel close: he hung around the anise station, listened as Theo talked of poetry and philosophy, and sometimes became calm, showed human feeling.

He fell sick, was hospitalized. His son died; his wife and daughter would not visit him. He was found to have a malignant anemia and to be of a blood type so rare that no donor could be located. He issued an appeal to his workers, but few came forward; he was about to die when Theo was discovered to be of the same type and offered blood. This indebted Mr. Mack, and he became even more nasty, sarcastic. Delia visited him once and was showered with obscenity; his workers were eager for his death; he had no friends but Theo. The doctors said it was hopeless, but every day Theo would sit at his bedside, spoon-feed him, hold his hand, suffer his insults, give him hope.

Though Delia protested, two or three times a week Theo would give a transfusion. She asked Rainer to intervene. “What’s this blood relationship?” Rainer asked Theo. “Why so wrapped up in the boss?”

“It’s not the disease that’s killing him,” Theo said, “but his own hatred. He can’t believe in love, so keeps proving to himself that no one can love him by being so mean that no one will.”

“A son of a bitch, in other words. How does it concern you?”

“Maybe I can show him the reality of love.”

“You’re a fool, Theo; you’re playing Christ. There are better roles, certainly less pretentious.”

The transfusions did not help; Mr. Mack grew weaker, thinner, and one day Theo saw that he was dying. His flesh was yellow; he could not turn his head; only his eyes moved, and directed at Theo a baleful gaze. He seemed to want to speak, and Theo brought his ear close to the waxen lips. “Dying is bad enough,” Mr. Mack whispered; “it’s too much, in addition, to see your stupid face. Get from here and be damned and don’t come back.”

Theo looked at him a long moment then sat beside him, took his hand. “You don’t mean that, Mr. Mack; I’m not going to leave you, and you’re not going to die. You will get well. Believe me. Trust me.” Their eyes locked in struggle. After a while Mr. Mack seemed to surrender; hatred drained from his gaze; his face relaxed; he turned his cheek to the pillow and slept.

Now Theo was ill, almost as pale as Mr. Mack, his bones shaken by a sudden fever. The nurses put him to bed in Mr. Mack’s room; Delia and Rainer kept watch, one of them always there. -Delia wept, scolded, cajoled, but could not reach him. His eyes became luminous; his flesh dissolved; and on the third day he seemed not so much to die as to go to Heaven. Delia and Rainer walked away dry eyed, abandoned. “I wish he had waited for me,” Delia said.

Three weeks later Mr. Mack left the hospital; a month later he was back at work-thin, quiet, ghostlike. As his strength returned he began to move about the factory, walk along the production line. Sometimes Delia would look up to find him staring at her from a dark corner, eyes brimming with tears. Often he mounted the dais and sat absently behind Rainer.

One day he called Delia into his office, with elaborate courtesy sat her down, started to speak; he swallowed, walked about, wiped his eyes, cleared his throat, planted himself before her. “Your husband, . . . my dear girl, . . . Theo, . . . a great man, very great man. Never did it occur to me”-with the beginning of rhetoric he seemed to recover a bit-”that a truly great man would work here, in my factory, under this roof, measuring out the anise.” He gazed at her hungrily, stroked the back of her hand, burst into tears. “My dear girl, I . . . am settling his salary upon you in permanent trust.”

“Well bully for him!” Rainer said when Delia told him. “I’m not surprised about the tears, but am astonished they dissolve the glue that sticks him to money.”

One morning Rainer found the bronze plaque replaced, the new one identifying the company as “Theobald Cookies, Inc.” All the stationery had been changed, all the signs, and a long eulogy of Theo mailed to all customers. Mr. Mack hung about Delia that day, beaming, but she was embarrassed and could say nothing. He went then to Rainer who gave him a sardonic stare: “What do you want, old boy, a pat on the head?” Mr. Mack suggested a series of fortunes dedicated to Theo: “I want every man who breaks a cookie, anywhere in the world, to think of Theo.” Rainer exploded: “You shovel the sentiment, Mack; leave the fortunes to me.” The guilt of the quick raises monuments to the dead. Mr. Mack turned away, crestfallen.

One Monday morning at eleven the alarm sounded, the production line stopped, and over the loud speakers came Mr. Mack’s funereal voice: “All hands stand by at the fortune press.” He arrived with head bowed, hands clasped behind his back; mounted the dais, faced the crowd, and slowly raised his arms high and wide as if to embrace them all. For a long minute he held this pose. “We are gathered together,” he said finally, “to honor the memory of our dear departed-fellow worker, loyal friend, dearly beloved, . . .” his voice broke, “. . . now lost to us. Let us bow our heads in prayer.” Nothing could be heard in the great room but a faint whispering of wind high up in the skylight. “All of us,” Mr. Mack continued, “have been grieving alone in our hearts. It will draw us closer if we share our grief and memories. Theo would have wanted this. I call first on Theo’s best friend, our great writer.”
Mr. Mack stepped aside, hands piously folded. Rainer looked out over the crowd; three men in the front row were crying. For a moment he hesitated, then stepped lightly to the edge of the platform.

“Not much to say. Theo was born in 1923, had few talents, an undistinguished life; pretensions to scholarship but a limited mind. He liked to sing, loved Scotch whisky, had a great eye for the pretty ankle-but was inhibited, guilty, would seldom look at a pretty knee. He was a fool, too, and died from giving too much blood. A gentle man, with a shy smile, a good friend. I’m sorry he’s gone.

“But you do him no honor with these tears. It’s not grief you feel, nor even loss, but self-pity. You weep for yourselves.”

There was a murmur of outrage; Mr. Mack leapt to his feet. “I protest I In the name of his wife, friends, fellow workers . . . in the name of us all I repudiate this description.” Rainer shrugged, sat down. “Theo was a simple man, to be sure,” Mr. Mack continued, “but in the way of Jesus. He was truly a Christ among us, and no one shall defame him.” He turned to glare at Rainer. “The idea of sacrifice,” he went on, “is the fountainhead of morality; without it we are beasts in the jungle. But we must not take it for granted. It could be lost. It has lived from Calvary to this moment only because a few gallant, selfless spirits have embodied it at the cost of their own lives. Theo was one such, and we are blessed to have known him, honored to have heard his voice, touched his hand. We must enshrine his example in our spirits, labor to become worthy.” He raised his arms. “Go now in peace, and may his grace be with you.”

“I hand it to you, Mack,” Rainer said as the crowd dispersed. “There was many a moist eye, many a drippy nose. Can you kiss babies too? . . . You ought to run for governor.” Mr. Mack, descending Tall Betsy with clerical step, did not deign to reply.

That week Rainer wrote of morality:

The idea of sacrifice disguises the hope of saving one’s own skin.
Herd animals may be identified by the tendency to carry Bibles.
Morals are the distillate of security operations

On Tuesday there were mutterings against him in the toilet; on Wednesday a petition to fire him was circulated; on Thursday as he left the factory five-hundred workers standing in a straight line stared in silent denunciation. On Friday when he arrived, Mr. Mack was standing on Tall Betsy before a crowd of workers, apparently having just finished a speech.

“I shall now myself write a fortune,” Mr. Mack said, casting a nervous glance at Rainer. “In memory of Theo it will be disseminated in our famous confection throughout the world.” He sat at the keyboard, speaking as he wrote: Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friend. There was a chorus of approbation, a few amens. Rainer leapt to the dais and hit the stop key. “Not over my mark,” he said and, reaching into the machine, withdrew the sign of the fox. Mr. Mack then pressed the key that called for 100,000 copies. The machine sputtered, jerked. “You’ll choke Betsy on that stuff,” Rainer said, but presently the machine acquiesced, began the familiar clickety-dacking. Mr. Mack held aloft the tape. “The mark of the beast is gone,” he said. “The essence of Christ remains. “

On Monday Rainer again found Mr. Mack at Tall Betsy, writing, but no crowd this time. As Rainer started to mount the dais his way was blocked by Robert Farley, six feet four, two-hundred-ninety pounds. Farley was an ex-machinist, ex-musician, whose job was to sharpen the thousand knives which cut the dough into cookie-size leaves. He was a sentimental giant easily moved to tears, had served a term for manslaughter a few years back, having done in his wife with a butcher knife and tried to ship her out of the country, dismembered, in a cello case. Right now his eyes were red from crying, his shirt wet on either side of his chest where tears had dropped unnoticed. His face was contorted, his lips moved silently.

“What’s with you, Farley?”

Farley stuttered, raised his arms, inarticulate, presently took the tape issuing from the machine, put it in Rainer’s hand: He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. Farley jabbed his fingers at this message several times, then gasped: “You. . don’t . . . write . . . any . . . more.”

“Idiot!” Rainer said. “Out of my way.”

“Don’t push your luck, buddy.” With the approach of violence Farley regained ease and voice.

Rainer grabbed his shirt and gave a shove, which -had no effect; whereupon Farley with an easy swipe of his left arm knocked Rainer flat, sent him sliding ten feet on the floor. Rainer got to his feet, grabbed a twelve-pound spoon, and had started for Farley when Mr. Mack jumped down between them. “Hold it, Rainer. A word with you please.” He took Rainer’s arm, drew him away. “Don’t antagonize him,” Mr. Mack said gently. “Come, walk with me. You and Farley must learn to love each other.”

“You’ve flipped, boss. You got a psychiatrist?”

Mr. Mack gave a false and priestly chuckle, threw an arm lightly over Rainer’s shoulder. “Some of the boys have been moved to express in writing their admiration for Theo, as is fitting and proper. So for a while, perhaps, . . . they will write the fortunes and you may . . . be relieved. Farley will lead off.”

“But Farley is stupid!”

“He’s devout. Intelligence is not everything.”

“For a writer,” Rainer said, “nothing can take the place of intelligence.”

“Well there may be some little difference of opinion about that. Why don’t you take a vacation. Get some rest. Meditate a bit; remember the past; think about Theo. It’ll do you good . . . may help you understand what we’re doing here.”

They walked back to the press where Farley was now installed, his great hulking shape dwarfing the keyboard, darting uneasy glances here and there with his’ small tearful eyes. Rainer picked up the tape: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“But perhaps you should give me back that little fox sign,” Mr. Mack said. “Our customers seem to expect it.”

“No dice, Mack. You can print the Bible verse by verse, but not over my mark.”

For several days, in millions of cookies, Farley gave his thoughts to the world

All of us are guilty; the only redemption is sacrifice.
So long as anyone in the world is dying all are guilty.
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone.
You are your brother’s keeper and your brother is everywhere.

On the fourth day he gave up all pretense of invention and, with Bible open before him, began pecking out the Gospel according to Matthew, and was quickly replaced; but not before seventeen carloads of cookies had been stuffed with the genealogy of Christ (And Aram begat Aminadab-Ezekias begat Manasses-and Zorababel begat Abiud) and had to be destroyed.

The next writer was Hartfell, the baker, huge, pastyfaced, dressed in white, and covered altogether, even his eyelashes, with a fine dust of flour. He did not so much sit on Tall Betsy as hover above her like a cloud. He was a philosopher, much concerned with the definition of man:

Cunning, perception, even foresight, all these we share with beasts; only sacrifice makes the man.
Some beasts look like men, talk like men, act more or less like men; but if they have not a willingness to sacrifice they are of the jungle.

Brevity was not within his compass. He grew quickly so verbose, even by the end of the first day, that his fortunes were running to three paragraphs; the folding mechanism was wrapping the cookies in the fortunes instead of the other way round, while from the oven came the acrid smoke of burning paper.

There was however no dearth of replacements. Secretly everybody was a writer, and there followed a succession of workers each presiding for a while on the dais pecking out favorite aphorisms, cherished platitudes, homespun insights. Tall Betsy had frequent breakdowns, blowing fuses, shorting out, giving off noxious fumes, occasionally even sent an electric shock into the seat of a writer. Mr. Mack thrived on the regime of piety, regained his rotund contour. In his face the lines of suffering faded, leaving only the guise of guilt.

Rainer no longer cared nor spent much time in the factory. Occasionally he would wander in, read the tape, wave ironically to the sweating, lip-moving writer, walk along the production line, flirt with the girls. In an atmosphere of reverence he was inclined to make jokes, to whistle, and one Thursday was come upon in the spice room stretched out with a laughing redhead.

“Cut down on the sugar,” he told Delia; “they’re putting so much in the fortunes you don’t need it here.” She was offended that he would not grieve for Theo, but he was unmoved. No time for that, he told her; sorry. She was lonely, he talked to her, and after a while she became less angry. He played with her birds, told funny stories, took her out in the evenings, and a time came eventually when he stayed the night.

One day as Rainer entered the factory Mr. Mack was lurking in the hallway. “Good morning, son, how are you? Come in my office . . . sit here. This chair is more comfortable. Cigar?”

“What’s the matter, Mack? You look worried.”

“Well, I am . . . about you.” He admitted this with a rueful boyish honesty and bit off the end of a cigar. “Fact is I’ve never felt quite right about . . . putting you on forced leave, as it were. Oh it was my own doing, I’m the first to admit that. But it was not quite fair-I see that now. Anybody can make a mistake; I guess that’s just the way we mortals are. But we have to make amends. So, I just want to say to you, man to man, ‘I’m sorry,’ and I’m giving you back your job.”

“I don’t believe you, Mack. Anyway I’m used to not working now, I like it.”

Mr. Mack became reflective, took a different tack. “You know, Rainer, there’s a lot of feeling against you, and it’s bound to get worse. The men resent your getting paid without working. There was an attempt on my life, you know. The same could happen to you. Frankly I’m worried.”

“You’re cracking my heart wide open. What’s that under your hand?” Rainer seized a folder that Mr. Mack was trying to hide, and in the tussle there fell to the floor a chart of sales which showed a precipitous drop. Rainer grinned: “Looks like a ski jump.” Along with the chart was a sheaf of letters demanding the return of the Fox. “So that’s it,” Rainer said. “Ah Mack, was it just a good-time morality?- Is it not also for adversity?” “None of your lip, young man!” “Would you, for mere money,” Rainer went on, “call back a writer whose principles you deplore? How crass of you!”

Mr. Mack himself began the writing of fortunes, dredging from ancient depths fragments of Benjamin Franklin and Horatio Alger, but could achieve no zip or tang, and every mail brought cancellations of orders. He tried then to copy Rainer’s cynicism (Life ends!-Check in your suit! -Meet you on the bridge!) but people heard the phony note and were bored. He forged the sign of the fox, but no one was fooled. Other factories reentered the field. Again he begged Rainer to write, offered a bonus, a larger share of profits. “Absolutely not,” said Rainer. Mr. Mack hired one writer after another, firing them in quick succession; he brought Hartwell back for a while, even Farley. Nothing was left now of Mr. Mack’s clerical manner: he strode along the production line, occasionally cuffing a worker, hovered about Tall Betsy, yelled at his writers, called them peasants, buffoons, and soon no one would write. He had to do it himself, would sit at the keyboard, sweat and swear and pound his head. His blood pressure rose, the rest of his hair fell out, his temper was extremely bad.

The company was now foundering. Wages were lowered; every week hundreds of employees were laid off. The great room was poisoned by an atmosphere of distrust, recrimination; workers went about with lowered heads and sullen faces, muttered in the locker rooms, beat their wives at home. One day, as it occurred to Mr. Mack that a woman might have the knack for fortunes, he assigned the job to Delia. “I don’t want it,” she said. “Do it or get out,” he said. Already her wages had been cut, the trust revoked; she could hardly buy food for her birds. So she sat on Tall Betsy and wrote from her heart:

The maze of love is better than all straight roads.
Better to live in the street and be jostled than alone in a tower of gold.
No victory over death but a tangle of loving hearts

Mr. Mack was enthusiastic at first-”Excellent!” he declared, “pure beauty, pure poetry!”-but cookie-eaters of the world were not impressed and sales continued to drop. Writing became for Delia a heavy burden, sometimes made her frantic. Often Rainer would sit with her on Tall Betsy, teasing a bit, petting her, playing with her hair.

Mr. Mack was enraged at his bad luck, scapegoated everybody. Customers no longer complained; they had lost interest in a failing concern, simply placed their orders elsewhere. Delia felt the continuing failure now as her responsibility, wanted desperately to stop, but Mr. Mack had no one else and would not permit it. One day when she went to his office to plead he pulled her on his lap, thrust a hand between her thighs, and when she slapped him said, “I can’t meet the payroll, may have to let you go—unless you are nice to me.”

Wages were cut a second time and then a third. The union charged bad faith, claimed that Mr. Mack’s personal fortune was still in the hundreds of millions, pointed out that stock dividend’s had not been cut. A strike was announced but was called off when a spy reported that Mr. Mack wanted the strike as pretext for a shutdown. The union filed suit for breach of contract; Mr. Mack retaliated with another wage cut; the union filed for an injunction.

Rainer was aloof from it all, busy in pleasure; days would pass without his coming in. He drew an undiminished salary; Mr. Mack was afraid to fire him. One afternoon, having been away for a week, he climbed the dais with a huge bouquet of yellow chrysanthemums. Delia smiled as he kissed her, forced herself to look at the flowers, but her face was drawn and distant; her eyes avoided his. He
looked at the tape:

He who seeks certainty in ideas is lost finally in experience.
Anger makes barriers, stops the flow of life.
A fool may find love, but only the wise and brave can hold it.

He tried to cheer her, told her of travels and encounters, and when still he could not reach her went away and returned with a humming bird, yellow and blue, in a silver cage. Delia looked at the bird for a long time, then opened the cage, held the gram of life in her hand. Abruptly she set it free and turned back to her work, not even looking to see where it had flown. Rainer put his hands on her shoulders, stroked her neck and hair. Oh sweetheart, she wrote, why couldn’t we have found each other a long time ago? Before it was too late? She began to cry; he turned her to him. “I can’t go on,” she sobbed, suddenly flung herself in his arms, burrowing her wet face in his shoulder. “Such a beautiful bird!” she cried, “but it would die with me. I can’t make them happy; they don’t sing any more. They sit in their cages and look at me and are sad. I can’t stand the way I live. Mr. Mack offers money if I spy on the union; the union wants me to sleep with Mr. Mack, get something on him. Oh I hate them all and I can’t write fortunes and I loathe this job!”

Rainer held her until she was calm, looked keenly in her face, then took her seat at the keyboard, pulled up his sleeves, put the sign of the fox in the machine. “Now cheer up,” he said, and wrote:

Humor is a luxury to happiness, a necessity to despair.
He that is without sadness among you, let him first cast a stone.
Security is reciprocal to change.
Animals should work; the duty of man is pleasure;sacrifice is for saints.

Tall Betsy seemed to recognize the touch; the clicketyclacking grew faster, smoother, took on a syncopated rhythm and a kind of purring. A few curious workers gathered to watch; Mr. Mack appeared with his bodyguard, picked up the tape. “Excellent!” he roared, “excellent! That’ll cut the taste of soy sauce. Now back to work you peasants. Speed up the line. We got a writer.”

With the first new shipment orders began pouring in. The Fox was remembered; arguments sprang up about him; columnists quoted him; again there was the clamor for interviews. As sales increased, Mr. Mack raised the price and hired more workers; once again rival companies were forced into receivership or the production of bubblegum and comic books. Feature stories about the Fox appeared in magazines; he was known as the “Destroyer of Transcendence” and “Founder of the Cult of the Present”; college students wrote term papers about him; a collection of his fortunes was published, under the title Adventures in Nihilism, in a paperback series on living philosophers. His were the first fortune cookies ever to be copyrighted, occasioning a debate in Washington as to whether whole cookies or just the messages should be deposited in the Library of Congress. (The Department of Copyrights considered the pastry as a binding and wanted whole cookies; the Section on Pests of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare said this would bring roaches to the stacks and was a hazard to health.) He became more famous and more wealthy, but remained anonymous. He built a Porsche Spyder and drove in road races, learned Spanish and bought a ranch in Mexico, collected Mayan art and Persian wall hangings. Two or three times a week he came to the factory to write fortunes; when away for any length of time he cabled them to Delia who fed them to Tall Betsy. He played polo in Nassau, sailed a twenty-eight-foot sloop around the Horn alone, bought a topless nightclub and personally interviewed each applicant.

One afternoon in July when the air was hot and still Delia knelt behind him as he worked, arms around his neck, ruffling his hair, murmuring in his ear. From the high skylight a shaft of golden, mote-loaded sunlight fell on the dais, enveloped them both. Suddenly down through the pillar of light with a delicate beating of wings swooped a humming bird, yellow and blue, and seized the tape issuing from Tall Betsy. Delia cried out in delight, “Oh look! It’s come back. It’s our own.” The bird tugged in vain at the tape, dropped it, swooped down to the moving production line to take a fortune from one of the cookies, and there, caught by the foot in the folding mechanism, fluttered helplessly. Rainer leaned out to get it, could not, leaned further, slipped, fell across the river .of trembling leaves. As he started to rise ten thousand steel fingers reached up seized his clothes and flesh. He struggled for a minute, then knew it was hopeless. With his left arm, which was all he could move, he freed the bird. Della screamed unheard; the production line moved on; Rainer looked up with a smile and a wave and was carried into the oven to his death. The bird fled upward through the golden shaft with Rainer’s last fortune: Don’t cry for help; there is no help; but give a signal.

Self-Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness – John Myrdhin Reynolds

Translation of the Text

1 Here is contained “Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked
Awareness,” this being a Direct Introduction to the State
of Intrinsic Awareness, ~
From “The Profound Teaching of Self-Liberation in the Primordial
State of the Peaceful and Wrathful Deities.” ~

2 Homage to the Trikaya and to the Deities who represent the
inherent luminous clarity of intrinsic awareness. ~

3 Herein I shall teach “Self-Liberation through Seeing with Naked
Awareness,” which is a direct introduction to intrinsic awareness ~
From “The Profound Teaching of Self-Liberation in the Primordial
State of the Peaceful and Wrathful Deities.” ~
Truly, this introduction to your own intrinsic awareness ~
Should be contemplated well, 0 fortunate sons of a noble family! ~
SAMAYA ~ gya gya gya ~

4 Emaho! ~
It is the single (nature of) mind which encompasses all of Samsara
and Nirvana. ~
Even though its inherent nature has existed from the very beginning,
you have not recognized it. ~
Even though its clarity and presence has been uninterrupted, you
have not yet encountered its face. ~
Even though its arising has nowhere been obstructed, still you
have not comprehended it. ~
Therefore, this (direct introduction) is for the purpose of bringing
you to self-recognition. ~
Everything that is expounded by the Victorious Ones of the three
times ~
In the eighty-four thousand Gateways to the Dharma ~
Is incomprehensible (unless you understand intrinsic awareness). ~
Indeed, the Victorious Ones do not teach anything other than the
understanding of this. ~
Even though there exist unlimited numbers of scriptures, equal
in their extent to the sky, ~
Yet with respect to the real meaning, there are three statements
that will introduce you to your own intrinsic awareness. ~
This introduction to the manifest Primordial State of the Victorious One ~
Is disclosed by the following method for entering into the practice
where there exists no antecedent nor subsequent practices. ~

5 Kye-ho! ~
O my fortunate sons, listen! ~
Even though that which is usually called “mind” is widely esteemed
and much discussed, ~
Still it is not understood or it is wrongly understood or it is
understood in a one-sided manner only. ~
Since it is not understood correctly just as it is in itself, ~
There come into existence inconceivable numbers of philosophical
ideas and assertions. ~
Furthermore, since ordinary individuals do not understand it, ~
They do not recognize their own nature, ~
And so they continue to wander among the six destinies (of rebirth)
within the three worlds and thus experience suffering. ~
Therefore, not understanding your own mind is a very grievous
fault. ~
Even though the Sravakas and the Pratyekabuddhas wish to
understand it in terms of the Anatman doctrine, ~
Still they do not understand it as it is in itself. ~
Also there exist others who, being attached to their own personal
ideas and interpretations, ~
Become fettered by these attachments and so do not perceive the
Clear Light. ~
The Sravakas and the Pratyekabuddhas are (mentally) obscured
by their attachments to subject and object. ~
The Madhyamikas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments
to the extremes of the Two Truths. ~
The practitioners of the Kriya Tantra and the Yoga Tantra are
(mentally) obscured by their attachments to seva-sadhana
practice. ~
The practitioners of the Mahayoga and the Anuyoga are (mentally)
obscured by their attachments to Space and Awareness. ~
And with respect to the real meaning of nonduality, since they
divide these (Space and Awareness) into two, they fall into
deviation. ~
If these two do not become one without any duality, you will
certainly not attain Buddhahood. ~
In terms of your own mind, as is the case with everyone, Samsara
and Nirvana are inseparable. ~
Nonetheless, because you persist in accepting and enduring
attachments and aversions, you will continue to wander in
Samsara. ~
Therefore, your active dharmas and your inactive ones both
should be abandoned. ~
However, since self-liberation through seeing nakedly by means
of intrinsic awareness is here revealed to you, ~
You should understand that all dharmas can be perfected and
completed in the great total Self-Liberation. ~
And therefore, whatever (practice you do) can be brought to
perfection within the Great Perfection. ~

SAMAYA ~ gya gya gya ~

6 As for this sparkling awareness which is called “mind,” ~
Even though one says that it exists, it does not actually exist. ~
(On the other hand) as a source, it is the origin of the diversity
of all the bliss of Nirvana and all of the sorrow of Samsara. ~
And as for its being something desirable, it is cherished alike in
the Eleven Vehicles. ~

With respect to its having a name, the various names that are
applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers). ~
Some call it “the nature of the mind” or “mind itself.” ~
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or “the Self.” ~
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or “the absence of
a self.” ~
The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta or “the Mind.” ~
Some call it the Prajnaparamita or “the Perfection of Wisdom.” ~
Some call it the name Tathagatagarbha or “the embryo of
Buddhahood.” ~
Some call it by the name Mahamudra or “the Great Symbol.” ~
Some call it by the name “the Unique Sphere.” ~
Some call it by the name Dharmadhatu or “the dimension of
Reality.” ~
Some call it by the name Alaya or “the basis of everything.” ~
And some simply call it by the name “ordinary awareness.” ~

7 Now, when you are introduced (to your own intrinsic awareness),
the method for entering into it involves three considerations: ~
Thoughts in the past are clear and empty and leave no traces
behind. ~
Thoughts in the future are fresh and unconditioned by anything. ~
And in the present moment, when (your mind) remains in its own
condition without constructing anything, ~
Awareness at that moment in itself is quite ordinary. ~
And when you look into yourself in this way nakedly (without
any discursive thoughts), ~
Since there is only this pure observing, there will be found a lucid
clarity without anyone being there who is the observer; ~
Only a naked manifest awareness is present. ~
(This awareness) is empty and immaculately pure, not being
created by anything whatsoever. ~
It is authentic and unadulterated, without any duality of clarity
and emptiness. ~
It is not permanent and yet it is not created by anything. ~
However, it is not a mere nothingness or something annihilated
because it is lucid and present. ~
It does not exist as a single entity because it is present and clear
in terms of being many. ~
(On the other hand) it is not created as a multiplicity of things
because it is inseparable and of a single flavor. ~
This inherent self-awareness does not derive from anything
outside itself. ~
This is the real introduction to the actual condition of things. ~

8 Within this (intrinsic awareness), the Trikaya are inseparable and
fully present as one. ~
Since it is empty and not created anywhere whatsoever, it is the
Dharmakaya. ~
Since its luminous clarity represents the inherent transparent
radiance of emptiness, it is the Sambhogakaya. ~
Since its arising is nowhere obstructed or interrupted, it is the
Nirmanakaya. ~
These three (the Trikaya) being complete and fully present as
one, are its very essence. ~

9 When you are introduced in this way through this exceedingly
powerful method for entering into the practice, ~
(You discover directly) that your own immediate self-awareness
is just this (and nothing else), ~
And that it has an inherent self-clarity which is entirely unfabricated. ~
How can you then speak of not understanding the nature of the
mind? ~
Moreover, since you are meditating without finding anything
there to meditate upon, ~
How can you say that your meditation does not go well? ~
Since your own manifest intrinsic awareness is just this, ~
How can you say that you cannot find your own mind? ~
The mind is just that which is thinking; ~
And yet, although you have searched (for the thinker), how can
you say that you do not find him? ~
With respect to this, nowhere does there exist the one who is the
cause of (mental) activity. ~
And yet, since activity exists, how can you say that such activity
does not arise? ~
Since merely allowing (thoughts) to settle into their own condition,
without trying to modify them in any way, is sufficient, ~
How can you say that you are not able to remain in a calm
state? ~
Since allowing (thoughts) to be just as they are, without trying
to do anything about them, is sufficient, ~
How can you say that you are not able to do anything with
regard to them? ~
Since clarity, awareness, and emptiness are inseparable and are
spontaneously self-perfected, ~
How can you say that nothing is accomplished by your practice? ~
Since (intrinsic awareness) is self-originated and spontaneously
self-perfected without any antecedent causes or conditions, ~
How can you say that you are not able to accomplish anything
by your efforts? ~
Since the arising of discursive thoughts and their being liberated
occur simultaneously, ~
How can you say that you are unable to apply an antidote? ~
Since your own immediate awareness is just this, ~
How can you say that you do not know anything with regard to it? ~

10 It is certain that the nature of the mind is empty and without any
foundation whatsoever. ~
Your own mind is insubstantial like the empty sky. ~
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that
or not. ~
Being without any view that decisively decides that it is empty, ~
It is certain that self-originated primal awareness has been clear
(and luminous) from the very beginning, ~
Like the heart of the sun, which is itself self-originated. ~
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that
or not. ~
It is certain that this primal awareness or gnosis, which is one’s
intrinsic awareness, is unceasing, ~
Like the main channel of a river that flows unceasingly. ~
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that
or not. ;
It is certain that the diversity of movements {arising in the mind}
are not apprehendable by memories, ;
They are like insubstantial breezes that move through the atmosphere. ;
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that
or not. ;
It is certain that whatever appearances occur, all of them are
self-manifested, ;
Like the images in a mirror being self-manifestations that simply
appear. ;
You should look at you own mind to see whether it is like that
or not. ;
It is certain that all of the diverse characteristics of things are
liberated into their own condition, ;
Like clouds in the atmosphere that are self-originated and self
liberated. ;
You should look at your own mind to see whether it is like that
or not. ;

11 There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the
mind. ;
Other than the meditation that occurs, where is the one who is
meditating? ;
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the
mind. ;
Other than the behavior that occurs, where is the one who is
behaving? ;
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the
mind. ;
Other than the samaya vow that occurs, where is the one who is
guarding it? ;
There exist no phenomena other than what arises from the
mind. ;
Other than the fruition that occurs, where is the one who is
realizing {the fruit}? ;
You should look at your own mind, observing it again and
again. ~

12 When you look upward into the space of the sky outside your
self, ~
If there are no thoughts occurring that are emanations being
projected, ~
And when you look inward at your own mind inside yourself, ~
If there exists no projectionist who projects thoughts by thinking
them, ~
Then your own subtle mind will become lucidly clear without
anything being projected. ~
Since the Clear Light of your own intrinsic awareness is empty,
it is the Dharmakaya; ~
And this is like the sun rising in a cloudless illuminated sky. ~
Even though (this light cannot be said) to possess a particular
shape or form, nevertheless, it can be fully known. ~
The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is especially
significant. ~

13 This self-originated Clear Light, which from the very beginning
was in no way produced (by something antecedent to it), ~
Is the child of awareness, and yet it is itself without any parents
amazing! ~
This self-originated primordial awareness has not been created
by anything-amazing! ~
It does not experience birth nor does there exist a cause for its
death-amazing! ~
Although it is evidently visible, yet there is no one there who sees
it-amazing! ~
Although it has wandered throughout Samsara, it has come to
no harm-amazing! ~
Even though it has seen Buddhahood itself, it has not come to
any benefit from this-amazing! ~
Even though it exists in everyone everywhere, yet it has gone
unrecognized-amazing! ~
Nevertheless, you hope to attain some other fruit than this else
where-amazing! ~
Even though it exists within yourself (and nowhere else), yet you
seek for it elsewhere-amazing! ~

14 How wonderful! ~
This immediate intrinsic awareness is insubstantial and lucidly
clear. ~
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all views. ~
It is all-encompassing, free of everything, and without any
conceptions whatsoever: ~
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all meditations. ~
It is unfabricated and inexpressible in worldly terms: ~
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all courses of conduct. ~
Without being sought after, it is spontaneously self-perfected
from the very beginning: ~
Just this is the highest pinnacle among all fruits. ~

15 Here is the teaching of the four great vehicles that are without
error: ~
(First) there is the great vehicle of the unmistaken view. ~
Since this immediate awareness is lucidly clear, ~
And this lucid clarity is without error or mistake, it is called “a
vehicle.” ~
(Second) there is the great vehicle of the unmistaken meditation. ~
Since this immediate awareness is that which possesses clarity, ~
And this lucid clarity is without error or mistake, it is called “a
vehicle.” ~
(Third) there is the great vehicle of the unmistaken conduct. ~
Since this immediate primal awareness is that which possesses
clarity, ~
And this lucid clarity is without error or mistake, it is called “a
vehicle.” ~
(Fourth) there is the great vehicle of the unmistaken fruit. ~
Since this immediate awareness is lucidly clear, ~
And this lucid clarity is without error or mistake, it is called “a
vehicle.” ~

16 Here is the teaching on the four great unchanging (essential
points called) “nails.” ~

(First) there is the great nail of the unchanging view: ~
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear. ~
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called “a nail.” ~
(Second) there is the great nail of the unchanging meditation: ~
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear. ~
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called “a nail.” ~
(Third) there is the great nail of the unchanging conduct: ~
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear. ~
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called “a nail.” ~
(Fourth) there is the great nail of the unchanging fruit: ~
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear. ~
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called “a nail.” ~

17 Then, as for the secret instruction which teaches that the three
times are one: ~
You should relinquish all notions of the past and abandon all
precedents. ~
You should cut off all plans and expectations with respect to the
future. ~
And in the present, you should not grasp (at thoughts that arise)
but allow (the mind) to remain in a state like the sky. ~
Since there is nothing upon which to meditate (while in the
primordial state), there is no need to meditate. ~
And since there does not exist any distraction here, you continue
in this state of stable mindfulness without distraction. ~
In this state which is without meditation and without any distraction,
you observe everything with a naked (awareness). ~
Your own awareness is inherently knowing, inherently clear, and
luminously brilliant. ~
When it arises, it is called the Bodhichitta, “the enlightened
mind.” ~
Being without any activity of meditation, it transcends all objects
of knowledge. ~
Being without any distraction, it is the luminous clarity of the
Essence itself. ~
Appearances, being empty in themselves, become self-liberated;
clarity and emptiness (being inseparable) are the Dharmakaya. ~
Since it becomes evident that there is nothing to be realized by
means of the path to Buddhahood, ~
At this time you will actually behold Vajrasattva. ~

18 Then, as for the instruction for exhausting the six extremes and
overthrowing them: ~
Even though there exist a great many different views that do not
agree among themselves, ~
This “mind” which is your own intrinsic awareness is in fact
self-originated primal awareness. ~
And with regard to this, the observer and the process of observing
are not two (different things). ~
When you look and observe, seeking the one who is looking and
observing, ~
Since you search for this observer and do not find him, ~
At that time your view is exhausted and overthrown. ~
Thus, even though it is the end of your view, this is the beginning
with respect to yourself. ~
The view and the one who is viewing are not found to exist
anywhere. ~
Without its falling excessively into emptiness and non-existence
even at the beginning, ~
At this very moment your own present awareness becomes
lucidly clear. ~
Just this is the view (or the way of seeing) of the Great Perfection. ~
(Therefore) understanding and not understanding are not two
(different things). ~
19 Although there exist a great many different meditations that do
not agree among themselves, ~
Your own ordinary present awareness is directly penetrating. ~
The process of meditation and the one who meditates are not two
(different things). ~
When you look for the meditator who is meditating or not
meditating, ~
Since you have searched for this meditator and have not found
him anywhere, ~
At that time your meditation is exhausted and overthrown. ~
Thus, even though it is the end of your meditation, this is the
beginning with respect to yourself. ~
The meditation and the meditator are not found to exist any
where. ~
Without its falling under the power of delusion, drowsiness, or
agitation, ~
Your immediate unfabricated awareness becomes lucidly clear; ~
And this unmodified state of even contemplation is concentration.
(Therefore) remaining in a calm state or not remaining in it are
not two (different things). ~

20 Although there exist a great many different kinds of behavior
which do not agree among themselves, ~
Your own self-originated primal awareness is the Unique
Sphere. ~
Behavior and the one who behaves are not two (different
things). ~
When you look for the one it is who behaves with action or
without action, ~
Since you have searched for the one who acts and have not found
him anywhere, ~
At that time your behavior is exhausted and overthrown. ~
Thus, even though it is the end of your conduct and behavior,
this is the beginning with respect to yourself. ~
From the very beginning neither behavior nor the one who be
haves have existed (as separate realities). ~
Without its falling under the power of errors and inherited
predispositions, ~
Your immediate awareness is an unfabricated inherent clarity. ~
Without accepting or rejecting anything, just letting things be as
they are without trying to modify them, ~
Such conduct or behavior alone is pure. ~
(Therefore) pure and impure action are not two (different
things). ~

21 Although there exist a great many different fruits that do not
agree among themselves, ~
The nature of the mind that is inherent awareness is (none other
than) the spontaneously perfected Trikaya. ~
What is realized and the one who realizes it are not two (different
things). ~
When you look for the fruit and for the one who has realized it, ~
Since you have searched for the realizer (of the fruit) and have
not found him anywhere, ~
At that time your fruit is exhausted and overthrown. ~
Thus, even though it is an end to your fruition, still this is the
beginning with respect to yourself. ~
Both the fruition and the one who has attained the realization are
found to not exist anywhere. ~
Without its falling under the power of attachments or aversions
or of hopes and fears, ~
Your immediate present awareness becomes spontaneously
perfected inherent clarity. ~
Understand that within yourself the Trikaya is fully manifest. ~
(Therefore) this itself is the fruition of primordial Buddhahood. ~

22 This intrinsic awareness is free of the eight extremes, such as
eternalism and nihilism, and the rest. ~
Thus we speak of the Middle Way where one does not fall into
any of the extremes, ~
And we speak of intrinsic awareness as uninterrupted mindful
presence. ~
Since emptiness possesses a heart that is intrinsic awareness, ~
Therefore it is called by the name of Tathagatagarbha, that is,
“the embryo or heart of Buddhahood.” ~
If you understand the meaning of this, then that will transcend
and surpass everything else. ~
Therefore, it is called by the name of Prajnaparamita, that is,
“the Perfection of Wisdom.” ~
Because it cannot be conceived of by the intellect and is free of
all (conceptual) limitations from the very beginning, ~
Therefore it is called by the name of Mahamudra, that is, “the
Great Symbol.” ~
Because of that, in accordance with whether it is specifically
understood or not understood, ~

Since it is the basis of everything, of all the bliss of Nirvana and
of all the sorrow of Samsara, ;
Therefore it is called by the name of Alaya, that is, “the foundation
of everything.” ;
Because, when it remains in its own space, it is quite ordinary and
in no way exceptional, ;
This awareness that is present and lucidly clear ;
Is called by the name of “ordinary awareness.” ~
However many names may be applied to it, even though they are
well conceived and fancy sounding, ~
With regard to its real meaning, it is just this immediate present
awareness (and nothing else). ~

23 To desire something other than this ~
Is just like having an elephant (at home), but searching for its
tracks elsewhere. ;
Even though you may try to measure the universe with a tape
measure, it will not be possible to encompass all of it. ~
(Similarly) if you do not understand that everything derives from
the mind, it will not be possible for you to attain Buddhahood. ~
By not recognizing this (intrinsic awareness for what it is), you
will then search for your mind somewhere outside of your
self. ;
If you seek for yourself elsewhere (outside of yourself), how can
you ever find yourself? ~
For example, this is just like an idiot who, going into a crowd of
many people, ~
And having let himself become confused because of the spectacle, ~
Does not recognize himself; and, even though he searches for
himself everywhere, ~
He continually makes the error of mistaking others for himself. ;
(Similarly) since you do not see the natural condition of the real
disposition of things, ~
You do not know that appearances come from mind, and so you
are thrust once again into Samsara. ;
By not seeing that your own mind is actually the Buddha,
Nirvana becomes obscured. ~
With respect to Samsara and Nirvana, (the difference is simply
due) to ignorance or to awareness respectively. ~
But at this single instant (of pure awareness), there is in fact no
actual difference between them (in terms of their essence). ~
If you come to perceive them as existing somewhere other than
in your own mind, this is surely an error. ~
(Therefore) error and non-error are actually of a single essence
(which is the nature of the mind). ~
Since the mind-streams of sentient beings are not made into
something that is divided into two, ~
The unmodified uncorrected nature of the mind is liberated by its
being allowed simply to remain in its own (original) natural
condition. ~
If you are not aware that the fundamental error or delusion
comes from the mind, ~
You will not properly understand the real meaning of the
Dharmata (the nature of reality); ~

24 You should look into what is self-arising and self-originated. ~
With respect to these appearances, in the beginning they must
arise from somewhere, ~
In between they must remain somewhere, and at the end they
must go somewhere. ~
Yet when you look (into this matter), it is, for example, like a
crow gazing into a well. ~
When he flies away from the well, (his reflection) also departs
from the well and does not return. ~
In the same way appearances arise from the mind; . ~
They arise from the mind and are liberated into the mind. ~
The nature of the mind which (has the capacity) to know every
thing and be aware of everything is empty and clear; ~
As is the case with the sky above, its emptiness and its clarity
have been inseparable from the very beginning. ~
Self-originated primal awareness becomes manifest, ~
And becoming systematically established as luminous clarity, just
this is the Dharmata, the nature of reality. ~
Even though the indication of its existence is all phenomenal
existence (which manifests externally to you), ~
You are aware of it in your own mind, and this latter is the nature
of the mind. ~
Since it is aware and clear, it is understood to be like the sky. ~
However, even though we employ the example of the sky to
indicate the nature of the mind, ~
This is in fact only a metaphor or simile indicating things in a
one-sided fashion. ~
The nature of the mind, as well as being empty, is also
intrinsically aware; everywhere it is clear. ~
But the sky is without any awareness; it is empty as an inanimate
corpse is empty. ~
Therefore, the real meaning of “mind” is not indicated by the
sky. ~
So without distraction, simply allow (the mind) to remain in the
state of being just as it is. ~

25 Moreover, as for this diversity of appearances, which represents
relative truth, ~
Not even one of these appearances is actually created in reality,
and so accordingly they disappear again. ~
All things, all phenomenal existence, everything within Samsara
and Nirvana, ~
Are merely appearances (or phenomena) which are perceived by
the individual’s single nature of the mind. ~
On any particular occasion, when your own (internal) mind
stream undergoes changes, ~
Then there will arise appearances which you will perceive as
external changes. ~
Therefore, everything that you see is a manifestation of mind. ~
And, moreover, all of the beings inhabiting the six realms of
rebirth, perceive everything with their own distinct karmic vision. ~

26 The Tirthikas who are outsiders see all this in terms of the
dualism of eternalism as against nihilism. ~
Each of the nine successive vehicles sees things in terms of its own view
Thus, things are perceived in various different ways and may be
elucidated in various different ways. ~
Because you grasped at these various (appearances that arise),
becoming attached to them, errors have come into existence. ~
Yet with respect to all of these appearances of which you are
aware in your mind, ~
Even though these appearances that you perceive do arise, if you
do not grasp at them, then that is Buddhahood. ~
Appearances are not erroneous in themselves, but because of
your grasping at them, errors come into existence. ~
But if you know that these thoughts only grasp at things which
are mind, then they will be liberated by themselves. ~
Everything that appears is but a manifestation of mind. ~
Even though the entire external inanimate universe appears to
you, it is but a manifestation of mind. ~
Even though all of the sentient beings of the six realms appear
to you, they are but a manifestation of mind. ~
Even though the happiness of humans and the delights of the
Devas in heaven appear to you, they are but manifestations of
mind. ~
Even though the sorrows of the three evil destinies appear to
you, they are but manifestations of mind. ~
Even though the five poisons representing ignorance and the
passions appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind. ~
Even though intrinsic awareness which is self-originated primal
awareness appears to you, it is but a manifestation of mind. ~
Even though good thoughts along the way to Nirvana appear to
you, they are but manifestations of mind. ~
Even though obstacles due to demons and evil spirits appear to
you, they are but manifestations of mind. ~
Even though the gods and other excellent attainments appear to
you, they are but manifestations of mind. ~
Even though various kinds of purity appear to you, they are but
manifestations of mind. ~
Even though (the experience) of remaining in a state of one
pointed concentration without any discursive thoughts appears
to you, it is but a manifestation of mind. ~
Even though the colors that are the characteristics of things
appear to you, they are but manifestations of mind. ~
Even though a state without characteristics and without
conceptual elaborations appears to you, it is but a manifestation of
mind. ~
Even though the nonduality of the one and the many appears to
you, it is but a manifestation of mind. ~
Even though existence and non-existence which are not created
anywhere appear to you, they are but manifestations of
mind. ~
There exist no appearances whatsoever that can be understood
as not coming from mind. ~

27 Because of the unobstructed nature of the mind, there is a
continuous arising of appearances. ~
Like the waves and the waters of the ocean, which are not two
(different things), ~
Whatever arises is liberated into the natural state of the mind. ~
However many different names are applied to it in this unceasing
process of naming things, ~
With respect to its real meaning, the mind (of the individual)
does not exist other than as one. ~ .
And, moreover, this singularity is without any foundation and
devoid of any root. ~
But, even though it is one, you cannot look for it in any particular
direction. ~
It cannot be seen as an entity located somewhere, because it is
not created or made by anything. ~
Nor can it be seen as just being empty, because there exists the
transparent radiance of its own luminous clarity and awareness. ~
Nor can it be seen as diversified, because emptiness and clarity
are inseparable. ~
Immediate self-awareness is clear and present. ~
Even though activities exist, there is no awareness of an agent
who is the actor. ~
Even though they are without any inherent nature, experiences
are actually experienced. ~
If you practice in this way, then everything will be liberated. ~

With respect to your own sense faculties, everything will be
understood immediately without any intervening operations of the intellect. ~
Just as is the case with the sesame seed being the cause of the oil
and the milk being the cause of butter, ~
But where the oil is not obtained without pressing and the butter
is not obtained without churning, ~
So all sentient beings, even though they possess the actual essence
of Buddhahood, ~
Will not realize Buddhahood without engaging in practice. ~
If he practices, then even a cowherd can realize liberation. ~
Even though he does not know the explanation, he can
systematically establish himself in the experience of it. ~
(For example) when one has had the experience of actually
tasting sugar in one’s own mouth, ~
One does not need to have that taste explained by someone
else. ~
Not understanding this (intrinsic awareness) even Panditas can
fall into error. ~
Even though they are exceedingly learned and knowledgeable in
explaining the nine vehicles, ~
It will only be like spreading rumors of places which they have
not seen personally. ~
And with respect to Buddhahood, they will not even approach it
for a moment. ~
If you understand (intrinsic awareness), all of your merits and
sins will be liberated into their own condition. ~
But if you do not understand it, any virtuous or vicious deeds
that you commit ~
Will accumulate as karma leading to transmigration in heavenly
rebirth or to rebirth in the evil destinies respectively. ~
But if you understand this empty primal awareness which is your
own mind, ~
The consequences of merit and of sin will never come to be
realized, ~
Just as a spring cannot originate in the empty sky. ~
In the state of emptiness itself, the object of merit or of sin is not
even created. ~
Therefore, your own manifest self-awareness comes to see every
thing nakedly. ~
This self-liberation through seeing with naked awareness is of
such great profundity. ~
And, this being so, you should become intimately acquainted
with self-awareness. ~
Profoundly sealed! ~

28 How wonderful! ~
As for this “Self-liberation through Seeing with Naked
Awareness” which is a direct introduction to one’s own intrinsic
awareness, ~
It is for the benefit of those sentient beings belonging to the later
generations of those future degenerate times ~
That all of my Tantras, Agamas, and Upadesas, ~
Though necessarily brief and concise, have been composed. ~
And even though I have disseminated them at the present time,
yet they shall be concealed as precious treasures, ~
So that those whose good karma ripens in the future shall come
to encounter them. ~

SAMAYA ~ gya gya gya ~
This treatise which is an introduction to one’s actual intrinsic
awareness or state of immediate presence ~
Is entitled “Self-liberation through Seeing with Naked
Awareness.” ~
It was composed by Padmasambhava, the Master from
Uddiyana. ~
Until Samsara is emptied of living beings, may this Great Work
of liberating them not be abandoned! ~
(On the full moon day of the eighth month of the Wood-Ox year, this Terma text entitled the Rig-pa ngo-sprod gcer mthong rang-grol, belonging to the Zab-chos zhi-khro dgongs-pa rang-grol cycle of Rigdzin Karma Lingpa, was translated by Vajranatha in the hope that it will enlighten and benefit all beings.)

Sarva Mangalam

Radical Awakening: Cutting Through the Conditioned Mind – Stephen Jourdain

Dialogues

A Childhood and Its Moments

Gilles Farcet: Let’s begin at the beginning, or at least what should be a beginning since, in fact, that experience whose praises you sing is situated outside of time. It is my understanding that even when you were a little boy, unusual inner experiences that others would not hesitate to qualify as “mystical” were common events to you.

Stephen Jourdain: Uh-huh (Steve inhales deeply). It was only decades later that I became aware of the rarity of my experiences. The tendencies I had assumed were universal unfortunately turned out to be anything but that. In fact, my memory goes back a long way, from when I was no more than a year and a half old. I have crystal clear memories of that early period. One thing is certain: I was already endowed with all the interior equipment with which, fifteen years later, I would receive the “rocker,” when that “thing” fell on my head during adolescence. It would seem that I was more or less born fully assembled which, I came to realize later, is not the case with most people. At one and a half years, the inner me was perfectly established and I was fully conscious of myself without, of course, knowing the words or concepts with which I could have tried to express my experiences. Thus, I clearly remember having experienced what I’ll call my first “moment” at the age of one and one-half while I was with my grandfather and amusing myself by trying to push a piece of gravel through a sewer grate-a very diverting and educational game! These “moments” continued throughout my childhood, cropping up almost daily, so often so that I did not live one privileged instant but thousands of them.

GF: Can you describe the characteristics of these “moments”? What would happen?

SJ: The moments were very different. Let me make one thing clear: the content of the awakening is one and indivisible. The original illumination diversified itself little by little without its oneness being challenged. As to these “moments” or “privileged instants,” their content can be extremely diverse. Let’s say that they always appear in the form of an abrupt and totally unexpected rupture. You can’t prepare yourself for one; they hit you on the noggin without a word of warning.

GF: A rupture? In regards to what?

SJ: In regards to the quality of habitual perception, these moments always come with a profound bliss although there are nuances. But let’s say these moments of bliss are nevertheless abnormal and unjustifiable in their intensity, their sharpness and the manner in which they differentiate themselves radically from ordinary perception which, let me clarify this point, is at its most acute in a little child. That an adult’s perception is dulled is to be expected, isn’t it? For a “big person,” such an experience would appear like a spot of gold on a priest’s gray cape. But a small child’s perception operates marvelously. However, these moments are so sharp in the intensity that they make even that small child’s faculties appear uniformly dull. As to the exact contents of these experiences – here are thousands! In several instances, the primary duality of “me” and “the others” vanishes.

Undoubtedly, that’s what many people today wish to evoke when speaking about “the fusion of subject and object,” an expression that strikes me as, at the very least, totally inadequate.

GF: Why?

SJ: There is certainly a union of the subject and the object but they do not “fuse,” they do not disappear in some kind of undistinguishable magma. What’s miraculous in these experiences is that, without in the least losing my identity, in legitimately remaining who I am, I become the table, the stove, or the mountain, or the entire landscape, which, in turn, remains integrally itself. A remains A, B remains B, and yet A is in the heart of B, B in the heart of A. If both terms cancelled out each other’s original nature in this fusion, there would be no miracle, there wouldn’t be anything at all. This point seems important to me to the extent that, ordinarily, I find it poorly understood. If one believes what one reads or hears, if John becomes the tree, the tree, such as it is, is consumed, as is John.

But that’s not it! John remains entirely himself, the tree remains the tree, and yet there is union. It is in this coexistence of fusion and maintenance of the intrinsic identities of both parties where the miracle resides. If an annihilated A fuses with an annihilated B, there’s really not much to fuss about. The extraordinary thing is that two completely different things can be truly joined while each, at the same time, maintains its original nature.

GF: Therefore, this miracle constitutes one of the characteristics of these “instants.”

SJ: Yes. Ordinarily we always feel the rupture between ego and non-ego to be more or less obscure. There’s a kind of primitive break between our inner reality and the rest. At these “moments,” the rupture is abolished. Once again, it is not a question of the simple abolition of duality, but rather the sudden appearance of a unity in the heart of the duality. One derives from this an important impression of a healthy, legitimate duality. From what I’ve heard, a number of teachings or approaches insist on a “nonduality.” Yet, if a falsified duality exists, there also exists a completely legitimate duality that manifests itself not only in space but also in time. Ordinarily, there seems to be a lot of insistence on spatial duality–certainly there is that which separates me from the tree, but there is also that which separates me from what I was or what I will be, that which, for example, separates me from my death. After all, a man’s life is very important! My death is an object that is, in its way, more solid and, for me, more real than the tree which means nothing to me! The duality is there; it manifests itself in space and time, and it is in space and time that the duality is either healthy or corrupt. In my opinion, it is a grave tactical error to set people going in an assault on duality without clarifying the difference between a healthy duality and a corrupt one. They run as much risk of hurting, or even destroying, themselves as they do of being saved. One cannot deny duality, since it is the principle of life. Certainly, a false duality that is the product of a given individual’s mind should be destroyed. I repeat and insist: duality, to the extent that it is a duplicate of reality, a dreamlike and personally fabricated duality, must be ruthlessly destroyed. But when this veil, in the center of which we habitually evolve, is consumed, when this enormous subjective bubble bursts, what is then left? What will you see once you’re outside the bubble? The world, plainly and simply. There is something! There is me and the tree. Duality exists.

GF: Duality remains in a different fashion.

SJ: Exactly.

GF: If I follow you, there is a duality in itself real, which you qualify as healthy . . .

SJ: Healthy, simple, and divine!

GF: As well as an unhealthy, unreal duality that is merely the product of our subjectivity.

SJ: This duality thing is a complex phenomenon. I’ll try to sum up the situation. What at one time would have been called the “soul”-a term that’s fallen into disuse and, at any rate, was clumsily used with one saying, “I have a soul” instead of “I am a soul” -which I call our spiritual essence-is the unique source of everything. It is our essence that is at the origin of what we call the “world” -and by that term I mean not only the so-called exterior reality, but also my spirit, the spirit in my body, my body in the world; and all this together conveyed by time. In other words, everything springs from our innermost selves. Our essence is creative. Originally, that is to say right now, immediately-I’m not speaking about an historic origin but the instantaneous origin-this source that’s within me generates the world: it produces perceptible reality as well as my spirit and my body.

To the extent that we abide there, we are at center-stage of the creation of the world, that is to say, the Eden-like phase of things. Then, instantaneously-and this is where everything gets spoiled-a second creation takes place. For our source is, so to speak, the double, in this second creation, it is I, personally, Steve Jourdain who is the father of the world. I claim both paternity and credit for it, while in the first type of creation, everything issues from my innermost self but in an impersonal way with no personal intervention on my part. At any rate, it is impossible for me to take credit for it. In short, there are two sources: the first, legitimate, which while being the foundation of the person, functions in such a way that that person cannot in any manner claim that he is responsible for what springs forth.

GF: Therefore, an impersonal source.

SJ: To qualify it as such would be improper, since we are at the very center of the person! That’s exactly the paradox, the miraculous paradox. Well, let us say a nonpersonal source in the sense that the ego appropriates absolutely nothing whatsoever.

GF: And the other source, polluted.

SJ: From which proceeds this counterfeit world, this pale copy of a reality-interior and exterior-in which we live. This second source falsifies everything all at once. The falsification takes place from birth; it’s already there when the infant emerges from the mother’s body. So much so that, from the start, we live in a state of permanent hallucination, in the torrent gushing from this impure source.

GF: Let’s go back to your childhood experiences. These “breakthroughs” were thus an integral part of your daily life?

SJ: Yes, and while certain of them were spontaneous, there were others that I elicited. I knew how to make this or that interior gesture that was to lead to one experience or another. It was a game for me to which I dedicated a good hour a day to playing, the way other children play with blocks.

GF: You played with consciousness.

SJ: In a manner of speaking. Nevertheless, I wouldn’t call it that because we are not talking about awakening but about experience. It’s not about the vision of the sea but, say, the sand dune. My entire childhood was dominated by this atmosphere. I didn’t speak about it to my parents because it was part of the secrets of my childhood. Be that as it may, since each individual spontaneously considers himself universal, I thought everybody experienced what I was experiencing. Much later, when I was around thirty and began to talk about it, I was very surprised to discover that my childhood experiences were completely out of the ordinary.

GF: You thought everybody was awakened?

SJ: No, no. Let’s not confuse the various inner experiences with the awakening itself-the vision of the sand dune and that of the sea. I knew very well that the people I met were not awakened. That which had “produced” itself, if I can put it that way, for me at the age of sixteen had not been produced for them. On the other hand, for me it was a foregone conclusion that everyone had experienced what I had during childhood. Discovering that this was not so came as one of the greatest surprises of my life and was, at the same time, very disquieting. For, after all, what happened to me at sixteen seemed to have depended on pure luck. There would be one chance in a billion that such a thing could occur. One in a billion is not much, but it is something, after all. But I discovered that almost nobody else had even an inkling! As a result, it became even harder for me to share with others what I had experienced. I already had the feeling that an abyss separated me from others, but that chasm then became infinitely wide.

GF: Before going further, I have a question about your remembrance of things. You say your memories go back a long way. Do the experiences we’re talking about favor that kind of long term memory?

SJ: Yes, and I would even say that to a certain extent I never was a child. In fact, when comparing myself at one and a half and at sixteen, a fraction of a second before the awakening, I do not see any difference. I was exactly the same. In fact, I think my memories go back even further. Fine, that’s not important, I say that in passing, but to the extent that one can accord the slightest reality to intrauterine life, I have memories of that life, too.
.
.
.
.
An Awakened Adolescent.
.
.
.
GF: Is reading the great authors a requisite of the awakening?

SJ: In any case, it can’t do any harm. Let’s get one thing straight: I’m not saying it’s absolutely essential to read these authors-and there are others-nor even that it’s indispensable in itself to be interested in literature. Yet the terrain must be prepared, the garden cultivated, the sensibility refined . . . One cannot misinterpret the importance of culture in the profoundest sense of the word. Of course, literature, Rimbaud, Proust, and all the others also participate in hallucination and sleep, but it’s a good way to dream. And it’s hard to wake up when you’ve dreamed badly. In my humble opinion-which is,to be sure, highly pretentious-for a Westerner, reading Rimbaud is more practical than reading I don’t know which “Sri Whatshisname.”

GF: I see you then as a sensitive, curious, cultivated adolescent-And then the awakening is sprung on you, if I can put it that way. Would you be kind enough to try to describe this non-event one more time?

SJ: I’ll try to put it another way-for my own ears if for no one else’s. The psychological circumstances were very precise. It “produced” itself one evening. Several days earlier, I had discovered Descartes’ famous statement: “I think, therefore I am,” and I had the intuition that it concealed-at least for me-a secret of enormous importance. I felt I was directly, in my very essence, involved in this formula. On this “great evening,” then, I was trying to extract the secret from this statement. Apparently, I approached it in the same manner as one does with koans-a word I wouldn’t discover until I was fifty years old. My approach was very realistic-let me mention in passing that one of the characteristics of my dream is to be extremely pragmatic: when I want to kill a fly, I grab a newspaper and swat it. Most people act that way, you say. As to material things, yes, but not when it concerns the spiritual. By that, I mean that when they encounter the “illusion,” they try to suppress the “Illusion,” in general, rather than confront themselves with their illusion. It’s like trying to liquidate the entire species of flies when swatting the one that’s bothering you. In short, I came to grips with my problem in a practical manner. “I think, therefore I am”: instead of examining the question of “Being,” “Thought,” and their relationships, I made myself the subject of the sentence, referring to the living reality of these words in me. I tried to grasp that formula, not intellectually, but with my very life. I pursued this effort for half an hour, an hour, until exhaustion. My intellectual faculties cried for mercy, I felt as if I were dragging myself along on bloodied knees and said to myself, “You’re crazy! Give it up! In the state you’re in, you don’t have the slightest chance of penetrating the mystery of that sentence.”

Yet, I did persist beyond good sense, showing a considerable aptitude for folly. Nevertheless, it would appear that this inner capacity to drive myself on like a madman was not without its virtues, for, all of a sudden, everything exploded. How can I describe the sudden nature, the total abruptness of the “event”? I detest using the word “supernatural,” but it’s the only one I can find that properly describes the suddenness of the awakening. With indescribable rapidity, I passed through to the other side of the mirror and found myself waking to an infinite wakefulness in my very center, in the center of that wakefulness which, itself, wasn’t an object but an intemporal act I was able to perform. I knew that I knew all there was to be known, that I had attained the infinite value, touched the essence of the essence of all things and of myself. . . I knew.

What did I know? Impossible to say. Let’s try nonetheless to define the phenomenon more precisely. That indivisible unity which is the awakening has, despite everything, several names: me, being, consciousness, infinite value. But, to cap that indivisible unity, there is something more important and that relates to knowledge. Not only I am but I know. In a sense, “I know” precedes “I am.” Knowledge is the strongest piece on the chessboard of the absolute and it’s irreversible: it’s as impossible to unlearn this intimate act as to unlearn riding a bicycle. I’ve insisted on the indivisible nature of the awakening. Still, and here again we must come upon a paradox: as soon as this other, interior light flashes, it rapidly gives birth to a certain number of “powers.”

Powers

.
.
.
.
It’s true that the great joys susceptible of being generated by that infinite, inexplicable, unjustifiable value are completely unheard of. Compared to these joys, the greatest pleasure accessible on earth in the usual conscious state is nothing but straw and dust. But these joys are themselves nothing but straw and dust in relation to the unjustifiable, supreme quality, the inexplicable infinite value. Seeing this value supplies nothing; one doesn’t approach it in the hope of any gain. One could speak of lack of involvement as with moral value. One doesn’t do good in order to be rewarded; one does it for goodness’ sake.

GF: From a certain point of view, yes. Still, if I do a good deed, even in the most unselfish way, it’s because the simple fact of doing good permits me to maintain an inner state that’s much more precious to me than what I’d feel after doing evil.

SJ: Excellent observation. Let’s be clear: the awakening does in no way constitute an end. One can only attain it by passing backwards through all intentions, all motivations-including that of attaining the awakening. One must strip oneself of all one’s intentions, all one’s wishes, even the highest. One doesn’t move towards the awakening, for if one can invoke even the slightest argument for moving towards awakening, one turns his back to it. In fact, the infinite value, once again, offers nothing. That leaves the problem you’ve just posed. It’s an objection one is certainly entitled to make: “You’re in the process of telling me that this value offers nothing in the usual sense of the term, but would you tolerate, even for a second, having someone deprive you of it?” The answer is an immediate and resounding: No! I wouldn’t tolerate it for a second. It’s the most precious asset in the world.

GF: That’s a paradox.

SJ: Yes? So what? In the end, why should I give a damn if there’s a paradox? What’s important to me is to describe the phenomenon, not try to explain it.

GF: There’s another objection people always make: Isn’t the awakening selfish?

SJ: In a sense, yes, absolutely. If the awakening withers in me, I will die spiritually. I care about it more than anything else as if it were my very essence-for the simple reason that it is my essence. Thus, on the one hand, I’m my own man. On the other, in accomplishing the spiritual act that allows me to induce the awakening, the infinite value. I’m no longer strictly my own man. The underlying reason for which I accomplish this gesture is of another order, it’s nonselfish, universal-but I cannot really explain it.

GF: Since we’re talking about selfishness, has the experience made you regard other people differently?

SJ: That’s a profound question. Among the faculties, powers, or savoir-faire inherent in the awakening I spoke of earlier, there’s the immediate and exhaustive knowledge of the structures of the normal state of consciousness. The very make-up of the awakening inscribes the knowledge of, on the one hand, the act through which the awakening will engender itself and, on the other, the nature of the error or falsification from which the normal state of consciousness proceeds. From the moment the awakening produces itself, you know more about the six billion inhabitants of the planet than they know themselves because you know the exact nature of the dream they are dreaming. You know the mechanism of the hallucination that holds them spellbound. All that because this mechanism is precisely the same for everyone.

GF: You’re speaking in a general manner, but, here and now, I’m sitting across from you, my wife is also sitting across from you. Does the awakening give you any particular sensibility or faculty of perception about each person you encounter?

SJ: You’ve just asked me a very indiscreet question. In order to respond, I need to return to this non-event that is the experience we’re talking about. It’s perfectly obvious that the awakening burned the psychological being that I was. But since, at the same time, it burned the flame with which it burned that being, nothingness returned to nothingness and the psychological being that I was escaped intact and unharmed. A universal destruction takes place at the moment of the awakening, but since that destruction is itself implicated in the range of what is destroyed, the universal sword thrust stabs itself so thoroughly that the psychological being rises again, healthy and whole. Thus the awakening is a thrust for nothing, so to speak, whose sole effect is to eliminate all the rot, and separate the wrong duality from the right one. The psychological being annihilated in the fire of the awakening is reborn, covered with the dew of the dawn of creation. Fundamentally, as I already said, absolutely nothing has happened. I became me. Nothing changed, everything changed.

As to the question you just asked, from a psychological standpoint, it’s obvious that I have an intuition about the interior atmosphere in which the person I’m speaking to evolves. But this is a rational, explicable intuition. On the other hand, I’ve had abominable experiences, so abominable that I hesitate to mention them. Sometimes I have a direct access to some one else’s consciousness-a devastating experience because I see the corruption and, moreover, its variables. The coloration of the corruption isn’t always the same. If I were a Christian, I’d say I see Satan. I avoid, or should I say flee, these appalling visions because they’re so painful. I can be with someone refined and brilliant and suddenly, without meaning to, I fathom his putrefaction. Moreover, that doesn’t necessarily happen in the person’s presence. Take careful note that I recognized my own corruption prior to the awakening! Nevertheless, I want to vomit into the toilet. These are horrible experiences, really, that I could compare to the horror that seizes me when I try to remember, to regain the sensation of sleep. You know, in a certain sense, the awakening evolves gradually as one lives it. The sun rises and remains the sun, but it’s not exactly the same color at noon as at dawn or at five o’clock in the evening. In the same manner, there’s a sort of full day to the awakening. The sun of the awakening that rose for the adolescent Jourdain has since continued its course and modified its glow. After forty years, I no longer have a body. By that I mean I am no longer situated in a body. Evidently, if someone mentions my foot, I’m not going to confuse it with the table! But my body, as an experience, no longer exists; the fundamental modification has taken place. It’s accompanied, moreover, by a modification of spatial perception. In the same manner, I no longer have a spirit. It has been a good thirty years since “my spirit,” in the usual sense of the term, totally disappeared. And about a year ago, I said to myself: “Shit, I no longer have a spirit, no longer have a body. How in the hell will I be able to explain all that to someone who has a spirit and a body and who, to boot, snoozes? I’ve got to remember what it’s like to have a spirit and a body.” Thus, I made a great effort, all alone in the kitchen, and suddenly I remembered-once again, I found myself incorporated, I became once again a spirit in a body. That only lasted a few seconds but I almost croaked!

Fine, okay, it’s a matter of a universal experience, almost everyone lives in this manner and I myself spent sixteen years like that and stood it very well. But there in the kitchen, I couldn’t stand it at all, it was a dreadful shock. I felt as if a layer of spiritual ammonia had spread over me. It was a moment of inner agony. All this to say that those times when, suddenly and without wanting to probe the consciousness of the guy I’m talking to, I experience the same sort of agony; suddenly, and with my soul, I receive the unmentionable stench of the everyday of consciousness full in the face—a stench that obviously isn’t detected by those who wallow in the cesspool and have never escaped it. Really, it’s a horrible odor of decadence and carrion. Obviously, it’s not a physical odor, but a stench that, as spiritual as it might be, is no less nauseating. Reeking is not exclusive to the material world. A spiritual stench exists and it’s dreadful. Let’s talk about something else, shall we?
.
.
.
.
Writing the Awakening.
.
.
.
…I had to retake the road traveled by philosophers for the last several thousand years to confront and solve the various philosophical enigmas. To a certain extent, I have succeeded in this task. Once the thing was intellectually got hold of, it was a matter of expressing it and thus having recourse to words. Therefore, I had to learn to write-not make grammatical errors and, above all, initiate myself to the oh so important usage of the semicolon (a must in French literature). That took a while-years, to be exact. Once one knows how to write more or less, it is necessary to pay attention not only to the meaning, but also to the color of the words. Two synonymous terms do not have the same color. It’s this attention to the color of words that differentiates the writer from someone who merely writes. The latter naively believes he has expressed his idea as soon as the sentence is grammatically correct and the words are logically aligned. But that’s not so! The act of writing begins when the intuition of the qualitative aura of the word, beyond its intellectual sense, springs forth.

GF: What you say makes me think of something Jean Sullivan wrote: “Swindling: to convince others that the words aren’t very important because the spiritual reality is inexpressible and, thereby, to justify the platitude of mechanical associations. Yet, without language, that is to say with neither action nor creation, there is nothing.”

SJ: That’s brilliant! Brilliant! That leads us to another problem about which there’s a lot to say and, preferably, say well. There exists a presumption as vile as it is widespread according to which the indescribable character of the interior experience authorizes us to give up when it comes to putting it into words. This presumption serves as an excuse for the enunciation of all sorts of platitudes and the collapse of language. It’s the most vulgar alibi of thought. It exhibits unheard of naivete and thoughtlessness. Such statements, if they can be excused coming from a child of twelve, are intolerable when they come from the mouth of a man who’s reached the age of twenty-five, thirty, or even sixty-five! Every supposed adult uttering such idiocies deserves to be spanked.
First question: are human thought and language adequate to grasp the reality we’re talking about? Personally, I’ve always had the clear intuition that the response would be affirmative. To a certain extent, human thought and language can transmit this reality. I would not have sweated blood for forty years trying to say this thing if I didn’t have faith in its expressible nature. Therefore, let’s sweep away these presumptions once and for all. Second question: why is it describable and conceivable? This ultimate self is conceivable because it is the legitimate conception of itself. There’s no difference between the awakening and the awakening justly conceiving of itself. The same process is at work. Now, is the conception by which the self apprehends itself beyond the spoken word or at its very center? As far as I’m concerned, it is definitely at the center of the spoken word-a word that’s not human but preverbal, a language which, though original, is no less of a language. The perfect adaptation of the human word to this prehuman language isn’t extraordinary if one accepts the idea that, in the beginning, there was the word. I am the word! The word is perfectly adapted to God because God is the word.

GF: The presumption you denounce is part and parcel of the primary anti-intellectualism existing in spiritual circles. There again, taking as pretext the fundamentally irrational character of the ultimate experience, many people have an annoying tendency to cut short all attempts at zeroing in on the question by denouncing it as “intellectual” -an adjective that, in their mouths, is as loaded with horror as the epithet “communist” was in the conservative America of the 1950s.

SJ: There you have it! Once again, it is a question of a shameful facility. Thus, another judgment of saying that that thing would be out of the range of human thought-to say “everything is in everything,” and other prefabricated expressions, is like addressing only the “popular masses.” That well justifies reason, particularly against what is most noble in intelligence and sensibility. One tramples intelligence and sensibility with delight and in clear conscience. Plato? Sheer rubbish! Descartes? Into the hopper! Ah, it’s useful to feel oneself justified to thus trash all the attempts by exceptional men to approach and formulate the essential! It is useful and shameful. For if it’s true that neither Plato nor Descartes nor Kant made the ultimate breakthrough of which I’m talking, there’s still the fact that, by putting to work the higher faculties of the human spirit, they approached it. In the same manner that no legless man can hope to win the New York marathon, no intellectual cripple could pretend to make the quantum leap by which one becomes oneself.

GF: Among the people supposed to have attained the awakening or approached it, history and tradition present us, on the one hand, examples of very refined, intelligent, cultivated beings and, on the other, with examples of uneducated monks sweeping the cloister-humble characters living that which the literate and the wise men speak of without having had the experience.

SJ: That’s exactly right, but there’s no contradiction between those two extremes. When I speak of a man using the noblest
and highest faculties of his spirit, I’m not referring to an inflated ego. Any and every child of man has the possibility, the right, and the duty to measure himself, be it clumsily, against the major enigmas of philosophy. The value of this process doesn’t reside in the fact that it can result in thick books or subtle considerations, but in the process itself. One can well imagine an extremely simple and totally uncultivated type initially asking himself all sorts of naive questions and finally arriving at the essential one: “I am! What is me?” and alone in his shepherd’s cottage, tackling this enigma barehanded. Undoubtedly, the shrewd Parisian intellectuals would double up laughing faced with such naivete. Yet, it’s precisely in this manner that one should proceed. Thus, I see nothing absurd or shocking in the idea that a monk or an uneducated peasant could open himself to this reality. It took me thirty years to learn what a koan is, yet it was precisely this instrument that I had used without knowing it. Descartes’ cogito was my Koan. Still, I wasn’t a great philosopher. I was a sixteen-year-old kid. Yet, it remains a fact that the action and the usage of certain faculties were present.
.
.
.
.
Reincarnation

GF: You say the sun rose because the sky was ready. Why was the sky, your sky, ready? For, after all, everyone doesn’t land into the awakening at sixteen . . .

SJ: Yes.

GF: Let’s take the famous example of Ramana Maharshi. As he himself testifies, the Maharshi was a very lively youth, not particularly interested in spiritual matters until that famous night when the awakening happened to him at the age of sixteen. According to the Hindu perspective, this young man was an old soul, a highly evolved being. His precocious awakening had been preceded by spiritual preparation accomplished during numerous previous incarnations. The concept of “reincarnation” is certainly much more subtle than that which we generally UIiderstand in the West. The Hindus can thusly “explain” the awakening in an unruly kid. Where do you stand with respect to this kind of consideration?

SJ: First, let me tell you what my position has been for a long time-there’s indubitably a relation between the extraordinary energy I expended during my battle with Descartes’ Cogito, the madness and stubbornness I showed even when I was nearly passing out, and the eruption of the awakening. The nature of this relationship remains highly mysterious since I can in no way consider that it was a matter of cause and effect. The cause, it’s the awakening! The fact remains that the awakening is born in a precise intellectual context consisting in an intense effort necessarily doomed to failure to pierce a mystery that included in itself the notion of “me,” of “I am,” and of “thought.” Moreover, there were circumstances relative to my sensibility. After having experienced at the end of my childhood, a slight loss of sensitivity, I took to reading Rimbaud. Thus, I lived in a world that made me profoundly vibrate second after second. In short, there was an intellectual disposition and a disposition of my sensibilities that were inseparable. Neither sensibility alone nor the intellectual approach alone would have led me anywhere.

But in the end, all that explains nothing. At this point, I’ve formulated a hypothesis: if I passed on to the other side, it’s because these two categories of circumstances made me take a detour, without my knowing it, to another world, that of the unborn where the “spiritual colors,” apparently endowed with creative power, emerged to allow me to accomplish the interior gesture in the proper way.

GF: But where do you stand in regards to the concepts of reincarnation, of evolution?

SJ: First of all, my vision changed when I became conscious of the extraordinary privileges I had enjoyed since birth. As I said, I thought people, if they were asleep, slept the sleep of the just right at the zenith of the dream. Once I realized this wasn’t the case I, at the same time, became conscious of a truth that is not very heartening: people are not born equal; their chances of awakening are unequal. Some are gifted, others are not. It’s atrocious, scandalous, but that’s the way it is. To the extent that the scandal poses a question, one would very much like to find explanations. For a long time, the people I saw harped on the ancient idea of the “old soul” refined by numerous previous lives. Given my family origins, I violently rejected all that, saw it as superstition, like flying saucers, and other hocus pocus that only merited my scorn. This didn’t keep me from looking for explanations myself. As far as these stories of reincarnation are concerned, if I weren’t extremely cautious about my human insights, about what inhabits me, I would, in the end, be inclined to take them very seriously. There exist, in fact, in the very texture of my experience, elements that I can legitimately interpret, without total affirmation, in terms of reincarnation and previous lives.

GF: What do you mean? What are you alluding to?

SJ: You know, when the awakening erupts, it’s a purely spiritual fire. Then an unexpected phenomenon occurs, which is that this spiritual fire suddenly inflames perception in its totality. It’s then that the multidimensional attention intervenes. The extraordinary richness of the landscape in which we evolve appears and one is capable of paying attention to a hundred billion things at once-that’s accompanied by a prodigious undoing of the world’s hierarchy. When the awakening spreads the fire throughout the entire field of perception, a series of totally unknown qualities appears. Just as no one can have a true foretaste of awakening before it erupts, no one can know what the perception of these qualitative beings can be before having seen them. These qualitative beings are simply not part of usual human perception. To put it in humorous terms, let’s say that that makes forty years that, with my soul and not my eyes, I “see things” no one else sees. And that makes forty years that I ask myself what the nature is of the things I see, without ever getting a satisfactory response. I am overwhelmed with love for what I see but simply do not know what it all means. When I was a real estate agent, I went through situations worthy of the Marx Brothers. I had to cover my eyes in order to be able to continue functioning in my profession. I would almost have fallen to my knees to issue a prayer, “Oh marvelous joys, oh marvelous fairies, marvelous angels, stop assailing me, bug off so I can make my phone call about Mrs. Thingamabob’s apartment.” It was an aberrant situation, so laughable that I’d sometimes frankly crack up. Yet that was my life for a very long time. In short, I see these things without knowing what they are. I call them the “one things,” for they’re indivisible. Nevertheless, qualifying them that way, I have neither designated nor described them. Sometimes I speak of angels with regret because of my anticlerical ancestry. I don’t know the words. . . Fairies? That doesn’t sound very serious. But despite all my problems with vocabulary, the fact is there there are these damn, formidable angels assailing me. These “things” that are equivalent to an unimaginable thrust of joy.

GF: You see that all day long?

SJ: It floats in my perception constantly, functioning like an old-fashioned bathtub water heater. There’s the pilot light and if you turn the button-psscch! Everything ignites. I carefully maintain myself in the state of the pilot light, for if the water heater ignites entirely, my functioning, as far as daily life goes, is out of the question.

GF: Could you be more precise about what you see?

SJ: Yes, what are these things that I’m seeing? First, I see them with my soul, my spiritual essence. It’s a matter of direct perception, alongside which the most extreme human joys appear insignificant. It’s a dagger’s thrust of bliss. In a word, these things that my soul sees, that make it tremble with joy, are something other than my soul while at the same time being nothing other than it. There’s absolute identification between my soul and them-these things are more me than I am. On the other hand, my soul exists and contemplates them. It’s thus a matter of a very strange relationship, leaving the great question: What, in God’s name, do I see? I’ve often said to myself that it closely resembles the vision of previous lives. These qualitative beings are one and indivisible but resemble windows overlooking a landscape. The window is one, but through it, I perceive things that I cannot really identify-a great mix, like the great mix of human events and human lives. It’s not unthinkable that, through these qualitative beings, I’m put in direct contact with entire segments of human lives. Is it a question of my previous lives, other lives? I don’t know a damned thing. But there’s something there that could give credit to this idea that reincarnation exists. By that I mean that even if no one had told me about it, the perception of these things could have given rise to this notion in me. I have the impression of perceiving all that across immense temporal distances. Thus, in the very texture of my experience, there are elements susceptible to being rationally explained in terms of reincarnation. Nevertheless, I’m not at all certain about this, and, moreover, don’t think that anyone can be.
.
.
.
.
Ecstasy.
.
.
.
GF: It’s not unusual for awakened ones to put aside a time for meditation, give themselves, each day, an hour or thirty minutes of silence to regenerate themselves. I do not have the impression that’s the case with you.

SJ: First of all, it’s necessary to grasp that the awakening comes first in relation to the ecstatic and legitimate effects it induces. The supreme knowledge is of a radically different essence than the ecstasies and other extraordinary joys it’s likely to induce. It would be dangerous to concentrate on the ecstasies.

GF: Moreover, all spiritual traditions warn against this temptation.

SJ: Oh, really? So much the better, for it’s very important. From the moment the awakening sets fire to everything, there’s a danger of perversion at the very heart of the thing. The relationship between the awakening and the ecstasies that it induces exclude all attachment to the latter. The principal danger lying in wait for the awakened one is that he’ll get attached to the awakening. Certainly, when the awakening erupts in someone, the life of that person becomes a dialogue between that supreme knowledge and himself. The merest attachment to the awakening signifies the destruction of the awakening. In fact, it presents a trap that’s very easy to avoid, one in which you can’t fall if one is awakened. On the other hand, the trap of the ecstasies is less clearly marked. I have found myself in that position: for six months, I did a lot of stupid things and my experience wavered. I was totally forewarned of the danger of attachment, but when the ecstasies pounce on you, it’s humanly impossible not to regret them. It’s a very pernicious phenomenon-let’s say the awakening is God and the ecstasies are heaven. On the one hand, I’m loyal to God since I have
no attachment to Him at all. On the other hand, I allow myself to be captivated by the heaven that God induces. Therein lies a subtle possibility of perversion. Heaven is merely an extension of God. To attach oneself to heaven and regret it is, in truth, to attach oneself to God and regret it-which is to say, to kill God. That’s what happened to me for awhile. I therefore took the most extreme measures to protect the awakening from the tragic tactical error consisting in attaching oneself to the ecstasy. It was very difficult, but I succeeded. Therefore, I absolutely no longer look for ecstasy. As it turns out, it’s always there in a latent state. I don’t try at all to plunge into it. Once again, the pilot light is there and that suffices. If it ignites, so much the better. If it does not, tough luck. I don’t give a damn!

GF: You never meditate, then?

SJ: No. At most I make minor corrections. The awakening is a living thing, not a comfortable armchair to sit in. The powers of sleep are always present; the devil is always there, except that he has lost all his vigor, all his power. Thus, from time to time, I make small spiritual adjustments; I straighten out the course, as I’ve done all my life. But it’s not a problem; I know how to do it and, for thirty years, I have behaved in such a way that the awakening hasn’t budged.

Death

GF: Obvious question: where’s your death in all that, Mr. Jourdain?

SJ: Obvious question, obvious answer, and nevertheless always surprising:

death = the-thought-of-death = nothingness

Once you’ve emptied death of all objective substratum, of all reality, it can no longer frighten you much. Death is a pure thought, a pure extension of my spiritual essence and thus. . . nothing! What about my physical death? Same thing! I don’t believe in any way whatsoever in the existence of a physical reality. I don’t believe in it intellectually or philosophically and, above all, emotionally. People talk to me about the physical body; I don’t know what that means. ‘Just the same,” one exclaims, “you have a body, organs.” No! Those are conventions, thoughts one should erase. The blackboard of knowledge must be blank. Everything must be erased and, among the things erased, figure my organs, my heart, the bullet that’s going to go through me and kill me, my death, and the universe. All that must be constantly eradicated; the blackboard itself must be erased. And that’s all I have to say about death.

GF: About death perhaps-but Gilles’ death, Steve’s, your wife’s?

SJ: I can’t compromise and am obliged to answer sharply: that future you talk about in which you’ll die and I’ll die is an extension of the principle “me.” In itself, it has no reality whatsoever. There’s no objective substratum and thus no death that’s pure thought. Even when you’re taking your last breath, I’ll tell you the same thing-it’s pure thought. One must, imperatively and for practical reasons of spiritual survival, treat the problem in that manner. I can only reject what your question designates. Doing this, I reject the question itself, he who poses it, and he who responds to it. It’s very important to approach things this way. In fact, it’s one’s chance of survival and eternity. I’m going to concede a point and admit that death is a real thing. The only victory that one can hope to have over death resides in its perception as pure thought. That’s all.
.
.
.
.
The Dream at the Center of the Dream

GF: You speak about the fundamental process by which I secrete my own reality. To defuse this incessant process of secretion, or at least to see it for what it is-an infernal mechanism that I operate myself-would amount to an awakening of myself. But the process of secreting an imaginary reality lies at the very center of the latter. We don’t even live the dream; we dream it. For example, I can come down to the kitchen in the morning, find you making coffee and say to myself, “Oh, Steve doesn’t seem too receptive; he appears in a foul mood; he’s mad at me.” And from there it’s possible to continue to think, “Of course, it’s my fault, I don’t know how to conduct myself correctly, I abuse his hospitality,” etc., etc, while you are quite simply making coffee without feeling the least bit of animosity towards me. In this case, I ascribe an emotion to you; I don’t see, I think. Most psychological problems and emotional disturbances cause our dream to seem more like a nightmare than sweet reverie, born from a propensity to think in the very center of this thought that is our existence. Not content to dream, we dream in the darkest depths of the dream.

SJ: Now there’s a very pertinent remark! At the heart of the embryo of mental health that reveals to our self the unreality of its personal productions-and which thus prevents you from taking the mental image of your wife for your wife-there’s a delirium of interpretation that’s more or less serious.

GF: That’s ordinary madness. Not to mention a persecution complex, what one considers psychological problems; all of us let our imaginations run wild, more or less, without that being considered the least bit pathological.,Most of the problems our existences are filled with could be avoided if we stopped thinking and began seeing. We’re the ones who transform the dream into a nightmare.

SJ: Exactly. Let’s put aside the awakening and stay within the domain of the relative: it’s important to dream well, to dream happily. If the dream itself is corrupt, there’s not a chance in a billion that it will explode. If people corrected the way they situate themselves in relation to their reality, they’d eliminate ninety-eight percent of their “problems.” That would not be the awakening, but a harmonious dream. They would be close to the zenith of the dream and in a position to burst it.

The Importance of Dreaming Well

GF: Isn’t the first step, then, the most urgent, to become normal, to eradicate in oneself the functions that corrupt the dream?

SJ: You’re absolutely right. I never thought of that!

GF: You understand-I see the danger coming-certain readers of our dialogue are going to knock themselves out uselessly trying to pierce the bubble even though they dream very badly, are nowhere close to the “zenith of the dream,” to use your expression, but somewhere in the lower depths. Wouldn’t the first job, the only pertinent one, until the new order, be to force oneself to dream well?

SJ: You’re right. I suffer from a grave handicap where teaching is concerned: my life stopped, for all intents and purposes, when I was sixteen. Moreover, I was a very happy child and adolescent. Not that I was devoid of problems, but I handled them very well and only made a slight deal of them. In short, from my birth to the awakening, I always dreamed very well. So much so that I gravely underestimated the nature and fullness of the problems to which people fall victim. I judge the extent to which the dream itself is perverted. Even Satan is capable of degenerating. Once again, we’re alone and it’s we ourselves who, without knowing it, make up the questions and the responses. If, at night, I dream that a wolf devours me, I’m relieved next morning to substantiate the unreality of the wolf and of me devoured. That’s equivalent to recognizing that I am both the wolf and its victim. Both are creations of my dream. Also, if one could make people conscious that they are the creators of their relative existence and the problems it comprises, one would already have taken a large giant step. No use looking further: the great drama for human beings is to not feel they’re sufficiently loved, to not feel sufficiently appreciated by their family, their friends, etc., etc. If one could, for example, show the person who feels scorned that he himself generates the scorn, generates those who scorn him, and keeps this hallucination alive second after second, one would completely rid him of his problem. The dream would remain a dream, the fundamental hallucination would remain an hallucination, but it would considerably assuage itself. Then it would even be possible for a little light of the awakening to filter into the heart of the dream. That is certainly the first job that one must accomplish to be truly effective. But on this subject, I can only verify my handicap.
.
.
.
.

The End of the Modern Age – Allen Wheelis

The Vision of Modern Age.
.
.
.
There is a parallel between the character of an age and of a man. The character of a man derives from his actions, from those things he does so typically and repeatedly that they become established modes of behavior, having independent authority, in some sense operative even when quiescent-as stealing is active in the character of a thief even when he is not engaged in theft, as kindness is active in the character of a good man even when he is not helping a neighbor. We are what we do. But what we do derives in turn from an image of self, a vision antecedent to action. A child whose parents despise him learns what he is from the way they regard him, and the image so formed is likely to be that of an unworthy person who will be led by that image to anticipate not love but rejection. From such a self-image -which may be unconscious and hence inaccessible to reflection or to instruction-proceed aggressive and retaliatory actions which, becoming in time established modes of behavior, define the character of the man whom the child has become.

The character of an age bears analogy to this individual process. The quality of the Modern Age derives from what we have been doing during the last four. hundred years, and so may be fairly characterized as the age of science and technology. But these scientific and technological things we have been doing derive from our collective self-image. The will that drives man on to great achievement depends on vision. The dream must come first to guide the effort, shape the leap, sustain the courage. In the sixteenth century man created an image of the limitless power of intelligence and found himself, dreamlike, saying, “Without help from God I can know the world”; and by virtue of believing it proceeded, in large measure, to make it true. The vast gain in reliable knowledge, in control of natural forces, is the result, and could not have come about had man continued to see himself as a humble worker in God’s vineyard. By virtue of dreaming himself in charge, master of all that he can survey and understand-not boss of the operation exactly, but no one over him - he has made spectacular gains in knowing and now is drunk on wine. Pride goeth before a fall, and man is reeling and fall may be imminent, but we must grant pride its due: it made possible a great achievement in knowing. Such insight does not issue from modesty .
.
.
.
.
The Dream of Mechanism
.
.
.
.
The works of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were quivering fragments, alive with hidden relatedness. In Newton’s hands they came together in solid interlock, revealed a coherent cosmic order governed by law-exact, permitting of no exception, given in the language of mathematics. The vision was not offered by God, but achieved by man. Man fumbled, made mistakes, false starts, but persevered. No one held his hand, no one showed the way, he got there on his own. Man can know the world. The Modem Age spreads its glittering vista, Faust begins his meteoric career.

Since nature is a mechanism, perhaps there is a natural order also for society, a right way for men to live together. Newton’s success in discovering nature’s laws led to the hope that laws of society-from which man had strayed in ignorance and error might also be found, might then provide the basis on which a just society could be built. The Philosophers claimed social facts as legitimate objects of science, confident on Cartesian authority that within the diversity of custom lay certain clear and simple principles which, if they could be discovered and set forth plainly, all men of good sense would recognize. “Even though that which in one region is called virtue,” wrote Voltaire, “is precisely that which in another is called vice, even though most rules regarding good and bad are as variable as the languages one speaks and the clothing one wears; nevertheless it seems to me certain there are natural laws with respect to which human beings in all parts of the world must agree.” 10 “Laws are the necessary relations which derive from the nature of things,” wrote Montesquieu;

and in this sense, all beings have their laws: the divinity has its laws, the material world its laws . . . man has his laws. Those who have said that a blind fatality has produced all the effects that we see in the world have uttered the great absurdity; for what greater absurdity than a blind fatality which has produced intelligent beings. Therefore, there is an original reason; and laws are the relations which are found between it and different beings, and the relations of these beings among themselves.

Montesquieu, and later Locke, proceeded to “discover” and formulate these laws-balance of powers between king, aristocracy, and the people; separation of executive, legislative, and judicial functions -and to them man .began to ascribe some of that same certainty that attached to Newton’s laws. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” wrote Jefferson, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. -That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Adam Smith, anticipating Marx, perceived historical change to issue from motives remote from any concern with the changes they were bringing about. “Human society,” he wrote, “when we contemplate it in a certain abstract and philosophical light, appears like a great, an immense machine whose regular and harmonious movements produce a thousand agreeable effects.” Feudal society, he believed, came to an end because feudal lords exchanged their surplus produce for the luxuries produced by the towns. “A revolution of the greatest importance to the public happiness,” he wrote in The Wealth of Nations, was in this manner brought about by two different orders of people who had not the least intention to serve the public. To gratify the most childish vanity was the sole motive of the great proprietors. The merchants and artificers, much less ridiculous, acted merely from a view to their own interest, and in pursuit of their own peddlar principles of turning a penny wherever a penny was to be got. Neither of them had either knowledge or foresight of that great revolution which the folly of the one, and the industry of the other, was gradually bringing about.

As human nature and social institutions were thus incorporated in the great clock, intentions became less important. The prudent investor “is led as though by an invisible hand to promote an end which is no part of his intention.” “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker,” Smith argues, “that we expect our dinner, but from their regard of their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity, but to their self love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantage.” Since the social machine proceeds thus inexorably and inscrutably upon its own beneficent course, human intentions were freed of moral restraint, and cupidity could indulge itself with a sense of self-righteousness, assuming that the long-range effect would be social advantage.
.
.
.
.
And as it is better for the investigation that the “object” not know he is being studied, so certainly it is better for the subsequent reshaping that he not know he is being altered. For so perverse is man that he will likely react with resistance to the awareness that he is being controlled, even though he be assured it is for his own good.

In the late nineteenth century, on the furthermost reach of the wave, mechanism laid claim to the soul itself. The interior life accessible to introspection is a mechanistic function of the next level down, the level of unconscious drive, defense, and conflict; and soon, it may be assumed, these unconscious phenomena may themselves similarly be reduced to neurophysiology. Freud diagrammed the psychic apparatus, postulated those forces however hidden which would be required to make it tick, and developed a method which presumed to demonstrate the wheels upon wheels which had been inferred. Analysts sat behind couches, listened to free associations, explained to patients the causalities which had shaped them, and expected them then to be different from that which they had just proven to them they could not help being, untroubled by this or by that other, even more curious, matter that they too, the analysts, must be automata and could no more help construing the patient’s life in the particular way they had arrived at than could the patient in accepting it or resisting it, and that indeed what might sound like a meaningful dialogue must be rather the synchronous but unrelated ticking of two clocks in the clock shop.

There were tremors to stir us. Becquerel found that atoms break down to energy, Einstein was reshaping Newton’s machine into something more plastic and mysterious, but we were so long asleep that mechanism had become our reality, life itself our dream.

The Man Who Looked Into the Future.

Once upon a time there was a man who yearned toward the future. With clear vulnerable eyes he looked over present pain to misty goodness ahead. The present was a cruel and capricious wind, scraps of paper swirling around his legs, packed grimy snow at the street corner, cinder in the eye, the pretty girl clicking by on spike heels with no glance for him, furnished room, failure, facelessness. The future was a pretty girl looking up with adoration, lips parting, flesh melting in a sacrament of passion; was great discoveries to the benefit of mankind, and incidentally to his own security and fame; was acts of honor, heroism and sacrifice which
would imprint upon flux and happenstance a seal of meaning. The present was contingency and death; the future was necessity and eternal life. The present was a desert across which, by ceaseless toil, he struggled toward the garden of the future.

He became a mathematician, got a job at IBM, sat at a desk, covered long rolls of paper with figures, could calculate with lightning speed. The digits were the present, their laws were the future; he struggled into the future of laws, replaced temporal digits with eternal symbols. He had great gift. From his pen flowed Greek letters, curved lines, pyramids, pictographs, curious marks; flowed with incredible speed from brain to pen, covering the paper with the score of strange wonderful music. He was relieved of tasks, given an office of his own, allowed to think at will and do nothing else; and from the strange music of his brain flowed great discoveries in quantum theory and statistics, from which IBM developed new polling methods of extraordinary accuracy. “You have given us,” the President said, conferring upon him the Gold Medal of Merit, “the gift of prophecy.” He looked up from his equations at the quivering jowls of the President, glanced around at the board of directors who were politely applauding, and saw that his gift was being efficiently translated into money.

He started his own company, made more discoveries, improved his methods, could predict national elections within a tenth of one percent, foretold business recessions, depressions, fluctuations in the price of gold. One evening toward the end of a long market slump he was able to predict that the Dow Jones average would jump fifteen points the next day, forty-five more by the end of the week, and this certainly was good news for the country at large, but the fact that he knew it first, it occurred to him, could be even better news for him personally. He borrowed fifty thousand dollars, bought Xerox on margin.

People trusted him. So successful he became that his own predictions became factors to reckon with in his total calculations. If he found that Industrials would jump ten points, then that prediction itself would cause another rise of four-to a total of fourteen. His equations became more complicated, began to correct themselves: any particular equation, arrived at by him, became a quantity of force altering the aggregates of forces being equated. So his calculations became self-conscious, the strange music of his pen began to listen to its own melody, to make corrections in its own intensity, even at times to change its theme. Many political candidates, in fact, would decide, months in advance of announcing their candidacy, not to run, conceding defeat in some phantom election of the future which had in a sense already occurred and therefore would never take place.

The President of the United States called often, came to depend upon him. “What will it do to my popularity if I veto the fair housing bill?” “What will be the effect over a period of three months on the number of registered Democrats in Dutchess County if I step up the bombing fifteen percent?” “Dear friend,” “the President said one day with tears in his eyes, “I really couldn’t do without you. You’re my right arm.” “Think nothing of it,” said the mathematician, and upped his fee another hundred thousand dollars. He developed the largest polling service in the world with offices in every county in the United States and every country of the world.

As he became more famous and more wealthy he noticed a curious trend in his life: the more he could see into the future the more he lived in the present. Formerly he had filled the present with drudgery, located all pleasure in the future. Now it was turning the other way around. All right, he thought, I’ll try it, will go all the way. The first half of my life was given to the future, the rest I’ll give to the present, will make no commitment to anyone or anything. He stopped working, didn’t have to, his organization could run itself. Leases on his patents brought in floods of money. He sighed happily, resigned himself to a life of pleasure-girls, gambling, auto racing, gourmet food.

Gradually having fun became a strain, he had to work at it, and the time came finally when he could no longer conceal this from himself. “I can’t bear doing just what I want to do,” he said, “I’ll go crazy.” But he was crazy anyway, he knew, because what better thing could he do than what he wanted to do? This is a problem, he said, and got out his slide rule and pencil and paper. “Let a represent any value. Then perhaps it may be said that a cannot exist alone, but only in relation to b, c, d. . . . Everything, that is, has to be validated by something else, and a present for which no future vouches is worthless.”

This hypothesis he found unpleasant, even sinister, for it would push him right back where he came from, toward a commitment to the future. He struggled against it. “I don’t want to live that way,” he said. “I’ve had it, it’s no good, it’s a waiting, a fast, and I want to feast, now, now, now!” So he tried even harder. The eating of delicate delicious food, he thought, surely that must be a value in itself, something that can stand against any nihilism. He tried, became a habitue of the great restaurants of the world, but found that the eating of food wants to serve the morrow, that when the morrow it serves contains nothing more than eating, that food itself becomes dust. In the Tour d’Argent he pondered this matter, looked out unseeing over Notre Dame, brooded on the crystalline evening, pulled his eyebrows, while before him appeared, successively, Croustades aux Truffes, Vol au Vent aux Quenelles de Brochet, Poitrine de Veau Farcie, Endives au Gratin-each served with great flourish, allowed to grow cold, sorrowfully removed. When finally the Souffle au Chocolat Flambe collapsed untouched the kitchen door splintered and the chef, as if fired from a cannon, hurled himself upon the reluctant diner, threw all the dishes on the floor, smashed the table, and had to be hospitalized. In the Four Seasons he looked out over a smoky red Manhattan sunset, did not notice the Pintade au Genievre nor realize that the man in black tie who had sat down beside him and was weeping in a napkin was the Maitre d’.

But orgasm, he thought, now there’s a thing in itself, the supreme value, perhaps the only one that can stand alone, needing no validation. He polled the model agencies, gathered together the most beautiful girls in the world. It didn’t work. He became frantic, tried two at a time, then a whole roomful, but it failed. Orgasm, he found, is a jewel which, the more it glitters, the more it cries out for a setting of love, lacking which the sparkle is lost and the jewel falls unnoticed to the floor. But love lays claim to the future, commits the present to the securing of that future.

So the present turned to dust. Very well, he thought, I’ll go back to my old ways, will tie myself to the future. The present will acquire value relative to future goods. But the future now seemed dismal, boring, without good. He scratched frantically, but all he could find in the future was more of the present-wars, depressions, labor disputes, revolutions, counterrevolutions, hurricanes, airplane crashes, people being born, people dying. As for the market-it would continue to fluctuate. The more clearly the future could be seen, the more evident that it could validate nothing.

He had painted himself into a comer. Sensuality, referring to nothing beyond the senses, had become boredom. On gourmet meals he had become not fat, but quite thin. And though he still bedded girls on occasion it was with a hidden elegiac asceticism, as if looking for God. Through temples of pleasure he wandered, untempted, out into the desert to draw faces in the sand.

The vision is lost. Even if the world were a machine, if Bohr, Heisenberg, and Born were mistaken, and if quantum events could be reduced to predictable occurrence by formula-even then the causal view is lost. Mathematics itself precludes that final crystalline clarity for which mathematics has for centuries been the symbol. For if the cosmos were a machine, everything within that cosmos-shoes and ships, cabbages and countesses and worms, the mind of man and every last thought and theory and feeling of man-would be part of that machine. Therefore we who think about these matters and speculate on the possibly machine-like nature of the universe would be in the position of one cog on one wheel attempting to figure out whether the whole apparatus is or is not a machine. Coders theory, as well as quite common commonsense, indicates that this is not possible; that though the cog might formulate the problem it could not, within the machine, answer it; that since, in this case, the machine is the entire cosmos, there is not, even in principle, a way to stand outside it; that, therefore, the question cannot be answered nor the problem ever solved; and that, consequently, the supposition is idle and meaningless, like a man before a mirror asking the man he sees what the man in the mirror is asking.

Pursuit of the Diminishing Object
.
.
.
.
Already in the nineteenth century it had been found that field phenomena cannot be reduced to mechanics. But by then the wheels and gears were inside our heads. “I am never content,” writes Lord Kelvin as late as 1884, “until I have constructed a mechanical model of the object 1 am studying. If I succeed in making one, I understand; otherwise I do not. Hence I cannot grasp the electromagnetic theory of light. I wish to understand light as fully as possible, without introducing things that I understand still less.”

At the same time the humanities, straining desperately to be sciences and always lagging, were entering their most mechanistic phase. Biology with Darwin, sociology with Marx, psychology with Freud, all saw the hidden machine, all strove to reduce variety of experience to unity of principle, apparent newness to hidden recurrence, the unforeseeable to the inevitable, appearance to reality. “The chaotic universe of change,” Barzun writes, referring to Darwin and to Marx,

was made rational by the ordinary fact of struggle; the anarchy of social existence was organized around class hatred. . . . The beholder began with a matter of fact and could reach symbolism and true knowledge with only an effort of application and memory. Physical struggle led to survival, physical labor to value . . . and at the end of each system yielded the most exalted objects of contemplation; the adaptation of living form; a perfect state. . . .

In mechanism, writes Whitehead, “the world had got hold of a general idea which it could neither live with nor live without.” “The misfortune,” Barzun writes, “was that when mechanism began to be questioned, for scientific reasons, the general public had become persuaded of its absolute truth; it could think in no other terms and it felt that all other views were simply ‘prescientific.’ ” Experimental physics cannot deal with the arsonist, has nothing to say about the contingency or inevitability of his behavior. The philosophy of mechanism assumes inevitability, and would wish to give force to this assumption by proving mechanism at the microscopic level. But what gets established when the cosmos is observed with very high magnification is indeterminacy and graininess. “When a slender beam of light is passed through a system of slits,” writes Bridgman,

the pattern ordinarily seen is . . . light and dark bands with smooth gradations from light to dark. But if the intensity of light is made very low, the smooth pattern breaks down into a pattern of individual spots, which mark the arrival of individual photons of light and the excitation of individual grains of the photographic emulsion. The place and time of occurrence of any individual spot in this pattern are at present absolutely unpredictable.

It is not, however, necessary, he adds, that this unpredictable event have only microscopic consequences, for “it would be possible so to couple a disintegrating speck of some radioactive compound to an atomic bomb as to blow up a city at an absolutely unpredictable time.” Likewise, we would add, the arrival of that photon at one point rather than another within the nucleus of one brain cell might achieve an equal extension of effect, perhaps sufficient to make the difference between the arsonist’s hurling of the bomb or his dropping it in the gutter.

.
.
.
.
Who are we to claim objectivity? We are the interested judge, we hold stock in this corporation. And have we not, moreover, known it all along? Has not our seeming unawareness been designed to retain for us, if challenged, the right to claim inadvertence? Now indeed we are challenged and the inadvertence is not credible. We had hoped, if we just kept quiet, that it would go away, that no one would notice. We have come a long way on false credentials; now our time of arrogance is coming to an end. We are not entitled to grace in getting out, to peace with honor; we’re being driven and had better hurry. Unless we acknowledge our compromised position and disqualify ourselves as judge we shall be hauled down from the bench and beaten to our knees with weapons of our own presumption.

We have lost the division between subject and object, are left with a field of knowing in which object partakes of subject. From hovering helicopter we shoot the fleeing polar bear and, while he is stunned, tag him; and, finding him again next year, we “know” something about the migration of polar bears. But the bear we know has had the encounter, has suffered the poisoned dart, and so may have roamed a different floe, drifted in different currents. Whatever we know of anything has come to be known, not only by our perceptions and our measurements, but also by our questions which derive from what we are and what we believe-things which change with time. Another type of being with different preconceptions addressing itself to the same phenomenon would arrive at different knowledge.

The knower, likewise, is changed by the known. We may never forget that polar bear, the terror and hate on his face, the frantic scampering to escape the clatter of the helicopter, the wash of the blades, the merciless trajectory of the dart; and the memory may change us, may lead us one day years later to befriend a wounded raccoon, to take him home, not knowing he has rabies, where he bites the thumb of a gifted pianist, our wife’s cousin, who had stopped in for tea.

The world to us is a woman in our arms; we may know her but will change her, and in being known she changes us. So we hold the world and are held by it, struggle together, are bound together inalienable, and so sail through a void forever. We should not boast of conquest-modesty better becomes our achievements in knowing-mindful that she whom we held yesterday may surprise us today with qualities born of the embrace. She’s not of iron, but mutable as are we; and we may, if careless, destroy in her what most we love.
.
.
.
.
Relativity of Knowledge
.
.
.
.
In the evening the other members of the expedition returned without Vavilov. He was taken so fast his things were left in one of the cars. But late at night three men in civilian clothes came to fetch them. One of the members of the expedition started sorting out the bags piled up in the corner of the room, looking for V avilov ‘s. When it was located it was found to contain a big sheaf of spelt, a half-wild local type of wheat. . . . It was later discovered to be a new species. Thus, on his last day of service to his country. . . Vavilov made his last. . . discovery

He was tried, sentenced to death, died in prison of starvation. Efforts to locate his grave have failed. The book in which the Russian geneticist Medvedev recounts these events was denied publication; when it was nevertheless published in America, Medvedev was suddenly committed to an insane asylum.

“We should like to have good rulers,” writes Karl Popper,

but historical experience shows us that we are not likely to get them. This is why it is of such importance to design institutions which will prevent even bad rulers from causing too much damage. . . . There are only two kinds of governmental institutions, those which provide for a change of the government without bloodshed, and those which do not. Marxists have been taught to think in terms not of institutions but of classes. Classes, however, never rule, any more than nations. The rulers are always certain persons. And, whatever class they may once have belonged to, once they are rulers they belong to the ruling class.
.
.
.
.

The Illusionless Man: Some Fantasies and Meditations on Disillusionment – Allen Wheelis

The Illusionless Man and the Visionary Maid

Once upon a time there was a man who had no illusions about anything. While still in the crib he had learned that his mother was not always kind; at two he had given up fairies; witches and hobgoblins disappeared from his world at three; at four he knew that rabbits at Easter lay no eggs; and at five on a cold night in December, with a bitter little smile, he said good-bye to Santa Claus. At six when he started school illusions flew from his life like feathers in a windstorm: he discovered that his father was not always brave or even honest, that presidents are little men, that the Queen of England goes to the bathroom like everybody else, and that his first-grade teacher, a pretty round-faced young woman with dimples, did not know everything, as he had thought, but thought only of men and did not in fact know much of anything. At eight he could read, and the printed word was a sorcerer at exorcising illusions-only he knew there were no sorcerers. The abyss of hell disappeared into the even larger abyss into which a clear vision was sweeping his beliefs. Happiness was of course a myth; love a fleeting attachment, a dream of enduring selflessness glued onto the instinct of a rabbit. At twelve he dispatched into the night sky his last unheard prayer. As a young man he realized that the most generous act is self-serving, the most disinterested inquiry serves interest; that lies are told by printed words, even by words carved in stone; that art begins with a small “a” like everything else, and that he could not escape the ruin of value by orchestrating a cry of despair into a song of lasting beauty; for beauty passes and deathless art is quite mortal. Of all those people who lose illusions he lost more than anyone else, taboo and prescription alike; and as everything became permitted nothing was left worth while.

He became a carpenter but could see a house begin to decay in the course of building-perfect pyramid of white sand spreading out irretrievably in the grass, bricks chipping, doors sticking, the first tone of gray appearing on white lumber, the first film of rust on bright nails, the first leaf falling in the shining gutter. He became then a termite inspector, spent his days crawling in darkness under old houses; he lived in a basement room and never raised the blinds, ate canned beans and frozen television dinners, let his hair grow and his beard. On Sundays he walked in the park, threw bread to the ducks-dry French bread, stone-hard, would stamp on it with his heel, gather up the pieces, and walk along the pond, throwing it out to the avid ducks paddling after him, thinking glumly that they would be just as hungry again tomorrow. His name was Henry.

One day in the park he met a girl who believed in everything. In the forest she still glimpsed fairies, heard them whisper; bunnies hopped for her at Easter, laid brilliant eggs; at Christmas hoofbeats shook the roof. She was disillusioned at times and would flounder, gasp desperately, like a fish in sand, but not for long; would quickly, sometimes instantly, find something new, and actually never gave up any illusion but would lay it aside when necessary, forget it, and whenever it was needed back it would come. Her name was Lorabelle, and when she saw a bearded young man in the park, alone among couples, stamping on the hard bread, tossing it irritably to the quacking ducks, she exploded into illusions about him like a Roman candle over a desert.

“You are a great and good man,” she said.

“I’m petty and self-absorbed,” he said.

“You’re terribly unhappy.”

“I’m morose. . . probably like it that way.”

“You have suffered a ‘great deal,” she said. “I see it in your face.”

“I’ve been diligent only in self-pity,” he said, “have turned away from everything difficult, and what you see is the scars of old acne shining through my beard; I could never give up chocolate and nuts.”

“You’re very wise,” she said.

“No, but intelligent.”

They talked about love, beauty, feeling, value, love, life, work, death-and always she came back to love. They argued about everything, differed on everything, agreed on nothing, and so she fell in love with him. “This partakes of the infinite,” she said.

But he, being an illusionless man, was only fond of her.

“It partaketh mainly,” he said, “of body chemistry,” and passed his hand over her roundest curve.

“We have a unique affinity,” she said. “You’re the only man in the world for me.”

“We fit quite nicely,” he said. “You are one of no more than five or six girls in the county for me.”

“It’s a miracle we met,” she said.

“I just happened to be feeding the ducks.”

“No, no, no, not chance; I couldn’t feel this way about anybody else.”

“If you’d come down the other side of the hill,” he said, “you’d be feeling this way right now about somebody else. And if I had fed squirrels instead of ducks I’d be playing with somebody else’s curves.”

“You’re my dearest darling squirrel,” she said, “and most of all you’re my silly fuzzy duck, and I don’t know why I bother to love you-
why are you such a fool? who dropped you on your head?–come to bed’” On such a note of logic, always, their arguments ended.

She wanted a wedding in church with a dress of white Alencson lace over cream satin, bridesmaids in pink, organ music, and lots of people to weep and be happy and throw rice. “You’ll be so handsome in a morning coat,” she said, brushing cobwebs from his shoulders, “oh and striped pants, too, and a gray silk cravat, and a white carnation. You’ll be divine.”

“I’d look a proper fool,” he said, “and I’m damned if I’ll do it.”

“Oh please I It’s only once.”

“Once a fool, voluntarily, is too often.”

“It’s a sacrament.”

“It’s a barbarism.”

“Symbols are important.”

“Then let’s stand by the Washington Monument,” he said, “and be honest about it.”

“You make fun,” she said, “but it’s a holy ceremony, a solemn exchange of vows before man and God.”

“God won’t be there, honey; the women will be weeping for their own lost youth and innocence, the men wanting to have you in bed; and the priest standing slightly above us will be looking down your cleavage as his mouth goes dry; and the whole thing will be a primitive and preposterous attempt to invest copulation with dignity and permanence, to enforce responsibility for children by the authority of a myth no longer credible even to a child.”

So . . . they were married in church: his hands were wet and his knees shook, he frowned and quaked; but looked divine, she said, in morning coat and striped pants; and she was serene and beautiful in Alencon lace; the organ pealed, weeping women watched with joy, vows were said, rice thrown, and then they were alone on the back seat of a taxi, her red lips seeking his, murmuring, “I’m so happy, darling, so terribly happy. Now we’ll be together always.”

“In our community,” he said, “and for our age and economic bracket, we have a 47.3% chance of staying together
.
.
.
.
Suddenly, all at once, she looked at him with a level detached gaze and did not like what she saw. “You were right,” she said, “you are petty and self-absorbed. What’s worse, you have a legal mind, and there’s no poetry in you. You don’t give me anything, don’t even love me, you’re dull. You were stuck in a hole in the ground when I found you, and if I hadn’t pulled you out you’d be there still. There’s no life in you. I give you everything, and it’s not enough, doesn’t make any difference. You can’t wait to die, want to bury yourself now and me with you. Well I’m not ready yet, and I’m not going to put up with it any’ longer, and now I’m through with you, and I want a divorce.”

“You’ve lost your illusions about me,” he said, “but not the having of illusions. . .”

“While you,” she said, “have lost your illusions about everything and can’t get over being sore about it.”

“. . . they’ll focus on someone else . . .”

“Oh I hope sol” she said; “I can hardly wait.”

“. . . you waste experience.”

“And you waste life!”

He wouldn’t give her a divorce, but that didn’t matter; for she couldn’t bear the thought of his moving back to that basement, and anyway, she told herself, he had to have someone to look after him; so they lived together still, and she cooked for him when she was home and mended his clothes and darned his socks, and when he asked why, she said, with sweet revenge, “Because I’m fond of you, that’s all. Just fond.”
.
.
.
.
“Give me some money,” he said tonelessly. “We haven’t any.”

He got up, walked unsteadily to the table where she was sitting, opened her purse and took out her wallet. A few coins fell to the table, rolled on the floor; there were no bills. He turned her handbag upside down: an astrology chart tumbled out, then a Christian Science booklet, a handbill from the Watchtower Society, “Palmistry in Six Easy Lessons,” dozens of old sweepstakes tickets and the three new ones, “Love and the Mystic Union,” fortunes from Chinese cookies (one of which, saying “He loves you,” she snatched away from him), a silver rosary, a daily discipline from the Rosicrucians, the announcement of a book titled Secret Power from the Unconscious through Hypnosis-but no money. He shook the bag furiously and threw it in a comer, surveyed the litter before him with unblinking bloodshot eyes, his face expressionless. “Stupid fool” he said thickly. “Purse full of illusions. . . suitcase full of illusions . . . whole god damned lousy life full of illusions . . .” He turned away, stumbled back to the table, put the empty gin bottle to his mouth, turned it over his head, broke it on the hearth.

“Oh, my dear,” Lorabelle cried, her eyes wet, “you keep waiting for the real thing, but this is all there is.” He turned ponderously, facing her, eyes like marble; she came to him. “These are the days . . . and nights . . . of our years and they’re passing-look at us! we’re getting old – and what else is there?”
.
.
.
.
That night they slept in each other’s arms and the next day the windfall was gone: it had been a mistake, the officials were terribly sorry, it was another man with the same name and almost the same telephone number, who owned a candy store and had five children, weighed three hundred pounds, and was pictured in the newspaper with his family, seven round beaming faces. Lorabelle was in despair, but Henry was tranquil, still felt that lightness of heart. He comforted Lorabelle and stroked her finally to sleep in the evening, her wet face on his shoulder. It was an illusion, he thought, and for a while I believed it, and yet-curious thing-it has left some sweetness. Throughout the night he marveled about this-could it be that he had won something after am-and the next day, crawling under the rotting mansion of a long-dead actor, he looked a termite in the eye and decided to build a house.

He bought land by the sea and built on a cliff by a great madrona tree that grew out horizontally from the rock, a shimmering cloud of red and green; built with massive A-frames, bolted together, stressed, braced, anchored in concrete to withstand five-hundred-mile winds, a house in the best illusory style, he thought wryly-to last forever. But the cliff crumbled one night in a storm during a twentyfour foot tide; Lorabelle and Henry stood hand in hand in the rain and lightning, deafened by crashing surf and thunder, as the house fell slowly into the sea while the great madrona remained, anchored in nothing but dreams. They went on to live in an apartment, and Henry worked as a carpenter, built houses for other people, began planning another house of his own.
.
.
.
.
One afternoon Lorabelle came home in a rapturous mood. “Oh, Henry, I’ve met the most wonderful man!”.
.
.
.
.
Henry caught her at the door, turned her over his knee, applied the flat of his hand to the bottom of his delight; and it was perhaps that same night -for she did not go out-that Lorabelle got pregnant, and this time didn’t lose it: the baby was born on Christmas, blue eyes and golden hair, and they named her Noel.

Henry built a house of solid brick in a meadow of sage and thyme, and there Noel played with flowers and crickets and butterflies and field mice. Most of the time she was a joy to her parents, and some of the time-when she was sick or unkind-she was a sorrow. Lorabelle loved the brick house, painted walls, hung pictures, and polished floors; on hands and knees with a bonnet on her head she dug in the earth and planted flowers, looked up at Henry through a wisp of hair with a happy smile; “We’ll never move again,” she said. But one day the state sent them away and took over their house to build a freeway. The steel ball crashed through the brick walls, bulldozers sheared away the flower beds, the great shovels swung in, and the house was gone. Henry and Lorabelle and Noel moved back to the city, lived in a tiny flat under a water tank that dripped continuously on the roof and sounded like rain.

Henry and Lorabelle loved each other most of the time, tried to love each other all the time, to create a pure bond, but could not. It was marred by the viciousness, shocking to them, with which they hurt each other. Out of nothing they would create fights, would yell at each other, hate, withdraw finally in bitter silent armistice; then, after a few hours, or sometimes a few days, would come together again, with some final slashes and skirmishes, and try to work things out-to explain, protest, forgive, understand, forget, and above all to compromise. It was a terribly painful and always uncertain process; and even while it was underway Henry would think bleakly, It won’t last, will never last; we’ll get through this one maybe, probably, then all will be well for a while-a few hours, days, weeks if we’re lucky-then another fight over something-what? -not possible to know or predict, and certainly not to prevent, . . . and then all this to go through again; and beyond that still another fight looming in the mist ahead, coming closer, . . . and so on without end. But even while thinking these things he still would try to work through the current trouble because, as he would say, “There isn’t anything else.” And sometimes there occurred to him, uneasily, beyond all this gloomy reflection, an even more sinister thought: that their fights were not only unavoidable but also, perhaps, necessary; for their passages of greatest tenderness followed hard upon their times of greatest bitterness, as if love could be renewed only by gusts of destruction.

Nor could Henry ever build a house that would last forever, no more than anyone else; but he built one finally that lasted quite a while, a white house on a hill with lilac and laurel and three tall trees, a maple, a cedar, and a hemlock. It was an ordinary house of ordinary wood, and the termites caused some trouble, and always it needed painting or a new roof or a faucet dripped or something else needed fixing, and he grew old and gray and finally quite stopped doing these things, but that was all right, he knew, because there wasn’t anything else.
.
.
.
.
Every morning Henry took his tools and went to his work of building houses-saw the pyramid of white sand spreading out in the grass, the bricks chipping, the doors beginning to stick, the first tone of gray appearing on white lumber, the first leaf falling in the bright gutter but kept on hammering and kept on sawing, joining boards and raising rafters; on weekends he swept the driveway and mowed the grass, in the evenings fixed the leaking faucets, tried to straighten out the disagreements with Lorabelle; and in all that he did he could see himself striving toward a condition of beauty or truth or goodness or love that did not exist, but whereas earlier in his life he had always said, “It’s an illusion,” and turned away, now he said, “There isn’t anything else,” and stayed with it; and though it cannot be said that they lived happily, exactly, and certainly not ever after, they did live. They lived-for a while-with ups and downs, good days and bad, and when it came time to die Lorabelle said, “Now we’ll never be parted,” and. Henry smiled and kissed her and said to himself “There isn’t anything else,” and they died.
.
.
.
.
The League of Death
.
.
.
.
. . . Ah, my “problem.” I like your way of putting it. Makes it sound definable. There’s therapy in that already. Holds out hope, suggests that one may say “My problem is . . .” and find a way to finish. Not right away perhaps, but someday. And as soon as a problem is defined it’s on the way to being solved. Isn’t that right? So, let us begin. My problem is-it really is quite simple now that I think of it-my problem is boredom.

I know boredom, doctor, as do few others. Have lived with it, absorbed its quality, taste, felt its weight on my bones. Look, that wall of fog outside the Golden Gate-see the slow relentless boiling? It will sweep in after a while under the bridge, extinguish every sparkling point of light and water, every bright sail, will rise, envelop the city, the hills, may enter even this room up to the ceiling. A sinister and fatal boredom, like that fog, chums at the edges of my life, is never far away; rolls in, creeps in, worms in; into mouth and lungs, a gray gorge rising, choking me, rising higher, behind my eyes. I’ve grappled with it for years only that’s just the trouble, you can’t grapple with fog, there’s no hand-hold. On countless days I’ve looked out on such a scene as this-my office has the same view–on such splendor, and felt like a prisoner on Alcatraz. But they were luckier; could believe that bars confined them, dream of release or escape, while I know the prison to be the walls of my skull, or some stiffening perimeter of spirit, perhaps, and no getting away. Oh, I know boredom.

. . . Hard to say, I don’t know that I’m bored about anything. More like the color of hair: boredom pertains to me as, say, hope to others. Look, it’s not so complicated: if you’re committed to people you’re not bored, if you’re not you are. It’s that simple. We just don’t like it. And being committed to people means doing something for them -teaching a class, building a house, fixing a car-not just a job, but putting some heart in it. But when you’ve done that for a while, whatever it is, and got good at it, just then the corruption begins. It seeps in through the first cracks – some indifference, some cutting of corners-the cracks get bigger, and then one day your heart’s not in it any more. The work goes on, looks pretty much the same from the outside, but now it’s more for the money or to keep busy or distract yourself or maybe to pretend that nothing is changed. That’s when you get bored. You know what I mean? Somehow the forms of social committment betray us, slip away; the visions of service become shabby. They stand around in our minds still, like the dusty scenery of some old play, but generate no action. It happens to all of us, to you too perhaps? No?
.
.
.
.
Good afternoon, doctor. You look tired. Tuesday is perhaps a bad day? It is for me: the pleasures of the weekend already forgotten in the strain of Monday; the weekend to come still too far away to lift one’s spirit. And five o’clock is the nadir of this low day. You’ve seen nine patients, I imagine, and two to go. You have a right to be tired. I work the same way, and never at a loss for a creditable reason, but suspect all reasons. You know what my accountant said? “You’re a money-making machine. IBM should copy you. “

. . . This chatter bothers you, I think. You want me to get down to business. . . . Ah, my cure for boredom. I’m glad you ask. It’s my major interest, my life work, there’s nothing I’d rather tell you.

It goes back a long time; I discovered the cure, in fact, before I knew the ailment. Death was the whole of my childhood: the broken doll, the stuffing coming out of my teddy bear, the flies and mosquitoes killed without a thought, the snail stepped on after a rain. Everywhere I looked there it was, and sometimes terribly close: once my mother dropping a live lobster into boiling water, and I simply could not believe that this was she who tucked me in and drove away my demons at night. How can one reconcile such images? If you’re interested in psychodynamics. doctor, put that down as the primal scene for me, the trauma that shaped the future. It was then I think, that death got in my eyes, and ever since they’ve been still and make people uneasy. In the car by my father I would watch with dread for the next smear of fur and gore; and after a while I wouldn’t get in a car. I refused to eat meat. became thin. One day as I got up from the table my father said, “That belt you’re wearing. ‘Genuine Cowhide…. “I’ll use a string,” I said. “And your shoes,” he went on, “you know what they are?” “I’ll go barefooted.” “And the sweatband of your cap?” I threw it in the comer. He took my ball, tossed it lightly; he was relentless: “Now this,” he said, “is covered with the skin of a horse.” So I was defeated, knew that my hands too were red, went back to eating meat and never felt innocent again.
.
.
.
.
“Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K.,” said Kafka, “for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning.” Someone has indeed been telling lies; we have, for centuries; and when finally they get brushed away a sentence of death is exposed. Copernicus swept out a pretty big lie; Darwin and Einstein tossed out two more. The pace of this housekeeping gets faster all the time, and by now the cupboard is nearly bare of the great lies we call absolute verities, and that’s all we ever had to hide death. After the First World War we took time out of its secret pocket and put it on our wrist and now everybody can hear the tick. I heard it very loud. I sat there alone and read, and after a while began to feel myself dying.

It was there that Mariette found me. She was the landlord’s daughter, and one evening-the fourth of July, as I learned-she came in my room, raised the shades, and said, “Look at the beautiful bursts of light, yellow and green and blue and red. Look at the fountain of fire!” She came back often, looked in my eyes and was unafraid. She didn’t like to be indoors, wanted sun and wind on her skin, made me walk with her. She laughed, looked everywhere and always saw something beautiful. We fell in love, were married. “What shall I do?” I said, looked in her face, and found no answer. I became a partner in a trucking firm, bought a fine house, drove a Lincoln; was bored. “It’s an accumulation of things,” I said. “I want life to mean something.”

“Better it be something,” Mariette said. “I don’t want to live just for myself,” I said. “Look at the swallows building a nest,” she said. I studied economics, mastered price theory, became an advisor to the Department of Commerce; and was bored. “Why does everything fail” I said. “Look at the yellow leaves,” Mariette said. “I don’t want to look at any god-damned leaves!” I shouted. “I’m looking for meaning, don’t know where I’ll find it, but not up any tree.” I studied philosophy, learned about essence, appearance, reality; and was bored. “Why can’t I make anything last?” I said. “Look at the storm clouds,” Mariette said. I changed to law, studied due process, equal rights, argued with brilliance, wrote books, became rich; and was bored. It was the same in law as everywhere else and too late then for still another change, and the great gray tide swept in, over me, as if to stay.

I turned back then to death. Only the bored have the leisure, the reflectiveness, and above all the proper frame of mind to study death. Because-do you know? – everything we do to fight boredom has a death-tasting quality. Have you noticed? Gambling, adultery, LSD-that sort of thing. Anything healthy is useless. So – our life is under the ax. with an indeterminate but limited stay of execution. What does it mean? What can one make of it? Not much, I thought-we die, that’s it. And most people if they consider it at all find it gloomy, I too.

Gradually, however, my view changed. I discovered the significance of death to be precisely opposite to what I had supposed: it is not the enemy of life but life’s great pillar, support.
.
.
.
.
“We pretend, gentlemen, to be aware of the ax. But I must tell you we forget, we lie, live basely with the illusion of continuing life.” I presented, then, my new theory, captured them with its irrefutable logic, came to my peroration. “Stay with the Main Show, my friends. Never be drawn into side issues, entertainments. Stay right there at the center ring in the big top. And what is the Main Show? Ah, . . . you know, have only to listen to the muffled drum within, . . . you know! How to live, . . . the despair, . . . the great cutting edge on which your life is turning-that is the Main Show. Never leave it. A man is up there in the big top, the highest point, right under the canvas-see him!-there! hanging by his teeth, arms outstretched, spinning and turning. The colored spotlights play over him, the drums begin to roll. Most people are watching the dancing bears, but you, my friends, must fix your gaze on the dangling man. He’s going to fall in a minute, any moment now, and there’s nothing to. be done about that, there’s no net; but in the meantime he may achieve something truly remarkable, some glittering stunt perhaps, even a moment of heartbreaking beauty. The man is you: Stay with him. Don’t run away from yourself. It is not important that you be happy or that you be sad, that you live long or that you live short; what is important is that you live authentically. Do not run from the true condition of your life. Hold still, feel the cutting edge on your throat, watch the dangling man, study his condition. What in this precarious and fateful state can he still do?
.
.
.
.
I was alone then, and didn’t care. Outwardly it made no difference. I would sit in my chair among things of beauty, and patients would come and I would listen; but inwardly-I hardly need tell you by now, doctor-all was changed. My newest insight had failed me, as had every other insight of my entire life. Nothing avails for long against the leeches of boredom, and they were sucking my blood again. I would sit through the day, listening as I could, and evening would come, the day’s work over, and I would simply go on sitting in my decorated prison. Nothing I wanted. I had money, leisure, freedom, independence, could do anything, go anywhere. What would it be tonight? Music? Krips is playing Das Lied von der Erde. Art? A great Impressionist show at the De Young Museum. Books, plays, movies, night clubs, gambling, girls everything all around. What did I want? Nothing. Not even food. Often would not go out to dinner or even to the kitchen, but sit staring at the sunset drinking gin.

Can you guess what happened” next? On just such an evening? the sun sinking? . . . No? Mariette came back. Key in the lock, door opening in the dusk, and there she was, arms around me, stroking, petting, kissing, dropping hot tears on my face. “Because I love you,” she said when I asked why. “And I hate you because I love you so much, can’t bear thinking of you alone. What’s the matter? You look so pale. I had to come back. Please be good to me.”

And so she began to show me the world again. We walked through the city holding hands: “Look at the children dancing.” We walked at night on the beach, arms around each other: “Look at the wake of the ship in the moonlight”; “Look at the footprints of the wind in the sand.” And in bed: “Look at me. Look at me, not through me.” But the old magic was gone. Nothing helped, the gleam in my eye grew brighter and made her sick. In the hospital I sat by her bed as she got weaker, and when she could no more than turn her head she still would say: “Look at the white clouds drifting”; “Look at the beautiful blue sky”; “Look at . . .”

. . . Sorry. For a moment I was overcome. I have a maudlin streak, you see. I’ll make it brief and dry as dust. She died of course, and only then did I see the obvious: She had known, always, what had taken me a lifetime to learn; she had achieved out of greatness of heart what still was beyond me-to love something enough to risk and lose her life. I say “something,” not “someone,” and maybe that’s my whole trouble. All along I’ve thought of what I sought as abstract, a principle or ideal, while she knew it was I, a particular man, whom she loved.
.
.
.
.
To Be a God
.
.
.
.
A deterministic psychoanalyst is like the Cretan passionately declaring all Cretans to be liars; like the barber, instructed to shave all men who do not shave themselves, wondering what to do about his own beard. As psychoanalysts our voices are getting hoarse, our beards are growing longer, and we are getting no wiser.

But one can’t keep walking away from one illusion into another. I see the pattern now, and with analysis I stick, and work; and gradually elaborate a criticism, giving up as little as possible. My disillusion, I decide, is not with the science of psychoanalysis but with its dearth of science. Too many unverifiable intuitions, too many glib explanations. Anybody who can learn to say “the opposite may also be true” can get to be an analyst. No search for a crucial experiment that might falsify our suppositions.

The wrath of disillusion is thus focused on one small outpost of science, and science itself goes scot free. Psychoanalysis is scapegoated, but intelligence is not impugned. I’m able to retain the crucial assumption: that there’s no better way to approach any problem than the way of intelligence. The source of illusion and failure-the source, ultimately, of that inner pain-is in ignorance and dogma; the locus of value is inquiry. The urgency is to have the freedom to see what is there to be seen.

This is the last stand of a rational man. From this position there can be no retreat. Lose this and the war’s over. It is also the strongest stand, for it lays claim to so little. Consider what assaults can be thrown back. A hundred thousand people die in Hiroshima: a great crime, to be sure, but not to be laid at the door of science. The evil issues from institutional anachronisms, such as the national state, which misuse the creations of science; with the further progress of knowledge in all areas of experience, such barbarism will give way. In this position I can survive, unthreatened, the despair of Marxist, Christian, mystic-even the most able and dedicated-for I can, in each case, say, “He gave his allegiance to a value which, however disguised, claims to be absolute. Such a value places itself beyond revision, is institutionalized, defended as dogma, becomes an incubus on man, and finally falls. Such disillusion is inevitable for the seekers after certainty. But I, the illusionless man, an immune. I have no platform, hold no value beyond change, believe only in intelligent inquiry.”

So I thought. Now I think this too will fall. Has fallen, I suppose. It’s still true, perhaps, but that’s not enough. For this position-like all the previous ones—is attempting, not just to be true but to diminish the elusive inner trouble. I can’t believe it any more. This malady is beyond the reach of anything. What I ascribe to intelligence is true, but this truth, too, has become irrelevant.
So what to do? What is a rational man to do-having lost faith in reason? The question trips itself. I don’t suppose it matters. I keep on working-not with hope, not with justification, but as a matter of taste. What else is there? Passivity, suicide, fleshpots. . . . I like the dignity of work. It has at least the merit of defiance, of shaking a fist at the heavens. But that’s just whimsy. Make a value out of that and it too will disappear.
.
.
.
.
The Moralist
.
.
.
.
Perhaps that man is social by nature. That even the most isolated of us lives in relatedness and interdependence. Alone in a locked room, despising men, one can’t read a book or eat an apple without becoming indebted to countless of the despised; the room itself was hammered together by them. Man is the animal who remembers the past, preserves it, adds to it, passes it on. To be a man, by definition, means to share in this relatedness, to give to it as well as take from it; and maybe the only source of morality for godless men is the free choice to be a man rather than a beast. For to elect diminished relatedness and participation, less responsibility, narrowed identifications, is to move toward the jungle.

Yet this, too, begs the question. For these alternatives offer no choice, but rationalize an antecedent choice. “Man or beast” means “man or sub-man,” which means “good or bad”; and to elect in this context to be a man means only to wish to be good, and that’s admirable indeed but establishes no basis for morals. Evil, however we conceive it, pursues its course in the lives of countless men who want to be good.

So why, we must ask, must relatedness, however characteristic of man, be identified with good? Cows and coyotes huddle together too. Even if we should accept that man is social in essence and even if we accept that his biological and historical development has tended ever toward more relatedness, larger groupings, wider and stronger identifications-even then we have no ground for morals; for we are talking only of what is, or was, or will be, not of what should be. Teilhard de Chardin, extending into evolutionary time man’s capacity for interrelatedness, foresaw the development of a universal mind, one all-embracing “envelope of thinking substance” covering the world. Let us grant this as a possibility but ask what reason have we for believing it good. Why should Teilhard’s man of the future, lacking unique mind, be viewed as superman rather than sub-man? Why, given a choice, should we not elect Nietzsche’s superman? Why not Jeff? .

I have wider and stronger social identifications than Jeff, am more concerned with the welfare of others. Am I thereby superior? Not, I am sure, to his view. Even were he to grant that the difference between us is so marked and so significant that, if I be man, he must be non-man, even then. . . “Don’t press me,” he would say, smiling with characteristic affection and lightness, but in his thoughts he would say, “Very well, if you insist: of the two of us, I am the superman. Because more free, less guilty, more able to live. I don’t think so much as you, nor probe morals, but I enjoy life more; and since from the vantage of the Horsehead Nebula in Orion neither you nor I nor anything we think matters a damn, pleasure is the only referent of value, and by that criterion I’m more advanced than you.” And how is this gainsaid?

Not by force of logic. By leap of heart, if at all.

I am in the fast lane, in a drizzle of rain at dusk; ahead of me, at a safe distance, a gray Mercedes convertible; beyond the convertible a trailer truck. The brake lights of the truck go on; the Mercedes slows; I slow; then the truck speeds on; the brake lights go off on the Mercedes. I put my foot back on the accelerator-then suddenly the convertible is broadside; my foot hits the brake; the blurred horizon spins. . . fast . . . faster . . . raindrops coming toward my eyes, remembering wife, child . . . oh, darling! I’m so sorry! . . . expecting the crash . . . a wild tearing roar of tires, a fountain of gravel rising by the window, the car coming then to a stop, without impact, upright, on an embankment. The Mercedes is not ten feet away, miraculously undamaged, facing the wrong way in the slow lane, a young woman with brown hair stumbling out. I catch her by the shoulders, pull her off the roadway, hold her, trembling, as she twists back as if searching, making then an inarticulate sound of distress and pointing: in the fast lane is a dog, hindquarters crushed (by the truck probably, and that’s why she tried to stop), struggling up on its forelegs, head straining upward, yelping feebly. I look up at four lanes of oncoming traffic-almost dark, faint streaks of rain slanting through the headlights-cars in the fast lane swerving outward to miss the dog, cars in the slow lane swerving inward to miss the Mercedes. The woman moves toward the road. “No,” I say, “don’t!” She twists toward me for a moment, her face frozen in horror and accusation, jerks away, runs for the road; hits me in the mouth as I catch her and pull her back, scratches at my eyes, screaming, “Coward! Coward! Let me go!” I pin her arms and we stand struggling in the rain, locked together, swaying, while the dog yelps; a car skids, a truck hits the dog, then a car with a thud, then another, and the dog is dead; the sirens then and flashing red lights and a police officer explaining that it’s the fault of the dog’s owner, who is liable, and who will be located from the tag on the dog’s collar.

I could never have made it, I tell myself later, driving on alone. But what if it had been a child? I would have tried. . . . Would I? I have an image of my own child, lying there, of my running out to her, of being hit in the third lane just a moment before I would have been able to scoop her up. But I might just make it, not altogether hopeless; I would try; it would be unthinkable not to try.
But there is a child, I think, just not so close as that dog. So the woman is right, and I am a coward. And it seems to me that somewhere, at some forgotten corner, I made a wrong turn-away from the real world that had seemed to betray me, to look inward, to burrow ever more deeply within, coming to live with shadows, the real world lost to me now, no sureness in it, not even knowing where the fast lane is.

The Meditative Mind: The Varieties of Meditative Experience – Daniel Goleman

Part one
The Visuddhimagga: A Map for Inner Space

.
.
.
.
1. Preparation for Meditation
.
.
.
.
Because a controlled mind is the goal of purity, restraint of the senses is part of purification. The means for this is sati(mindfulness). In mindfulness, control of the senses comes through cultivating the habit of simply noticing sensory perceptions, not allowing them to stimulate the mind into thought chains of reaction. Mindfulness is the attitude of paying sensory stimuli only the barest attention. When systematically developed into the practice of vipassana (seeing things as they are), mindfulness becomes the avenue to the nirvanic state. In daily practice, mindfulness leads to detachment toward the meditator’s own perceptions and thoughts. He becomes an onlooker to his stream of consciousness, weakening the pull to normal mental activity and so preparing the way to altered states.

In the initial stages, before firm grounding in mindfulness, the meditator is distracted by his surroundings. The Visuddhimagga accordingly gives instructions to the would-be meditator for the optimum life-style and setting. He must engage in “right livelihood” so that the source of his financial support will not be cause for misgivings; in the case of monks, professions such as astrology, palm reading, and dream interpretation are expressly forbidden, while the life of a mendicant is recommended. Possessions should be kept to a minimum; a monk is to possess only eight articles: three robes, a belt, a begging bowl, a razor, a sewing needle, and sandals. He should take food in moderation, enough to ensure physical health but less than would make for drowsiness. His dwelling should be aloof from the world, a place of solitude; for householders who cannot live in isolation, a room should be set aside for meditation. Undue concern for the body should be avoided, but in case of sickness, the meditator should obtain appropriate medicine. In acquiring the four requisites of possessions, food, dwelling, and medicine, the meditator should get only what is necessary to his well-being. In getting these requisites, he should act without greed, so that even his material necessities will be untainted by impurity.

Since one’s own state of mind is affected by the state of mind of one’s associates, the serious meditator should surround himself with like-minded people. This is one advantage of sanghas, narrowly defined as those who have attained the nirvanic state and, in its widest sense, the community of people on the path. Meditation is helped by the company of mindful or concentrated persons and is harmed by those who are agitated, distracted, and immersed in worldly concerns. Agitated, worldly people are likely to talk in a way that does not lead to detachment, dispassion, or tranquility, qualities the meditator seeks to cultivate. The sort of topics typical of worldly, unprofitable talk are enumerated by the Buddha as (Nyanaponika Thera, 1962: p. 172)

about kings, thieves, ministers, armies, famine, and war; about eating, drinking, clothing and lodging; about garlands, perfumes, relatives, vehicles, cities and countries; about women and wine, the gossip of the street and well; about ancestors and various trifles; tales about the origin of the world, talk about things being so or otherwise, and similar matters.

At later stages, the meditator may find to be obstacles what once were aids. The Visuddhimagga lists ten categories of potential attachments, all hindrances to progress in meditation: (1) any fixed dwelling place if its upkeep is the cause of worry, (2) family, if their welfare causes concern, (3) accruing gifts or reputation that involves spending time with admirers, (4) a following of students or being busy with teaching, (5) projects, having “something to do,” (6) traveling about, (7) people dear to one whose needs demand attention, (8) illness necessitating undergoing treatment, (9) theoretical studies unaccompanied by practice, and (10)supernormal psychic powers, the practice of which becomes more interesting than meditation. Release from these obligations frees the meditator for single-minded pursuit of meditation: This is “purification” in the sense of freeing the mind from worrisome matters. The life of the monk is designed for this kind of freedom; for the layman, short retreats allow a temporary reprieve.

These ascetic practices are optional in the “middle way” of the Buddha. The serious monk can practice them, should he find any of them helpful. But he must be discreet in their observance, doing them so that they will not attract undue attention. These practices include wearing only robes made of rags; eating only one bowl of food, and just once a day; living in the forest under a tree; dwelling in a cemetery or in the open; sitting up throughout the night. Though optional, the Buddha praises those who follow these modes of living “for the sake of frugality, contentedness, austerity, detachment,” while criticizing those who pride themselves on practicing austerities and look down on others who do not. In all facets of training, spiritual pride mars purity. Any gains from asceticism are lost in pride. The goal of purification is simply a mind unconcerned with externals, calm and ripe for meditation.
.
.
.
.
2. The Path of Concentration

In describing the path of concentration, the Visuddhimagga map suffers from a serious oversight: It begins with the description of an advanced altered state, one that many or most meditators may never once experience. It skips the ordinary-and much more common-preliminary stages. This gap can be filled from other Buddhist sources, which start with the meditator’s normal state of mind rather than with the rarefied states the Visuddhimagga elaborates in detail.

At the outset, the meditator’s focus wanders from the object of meditation. As he notices he has wandered, he returns his awareness to the proper focus. His one-pointedness is occasional, coming in fits and starts. His mind oscillates between the object of meditation and distracting thoughts, feelings, and sensations. The first landmark in concentration comes when the meditator’s mind is unaffected both by outer distractions, such as nearby sounds, and by the turbulence of his own assorted thoughts and feelings. Although sounds are heard, and his thoughts and feelings are noticed, they do not disturb the meditator.

In the next stage, his mind focuses on the object for prolonged periods. The meditator gets better at repeatedly returning his wandering mind to the object. His ability to return his attention gradually increases as the meditator sees the ill results of distractions (e.g., agitation) and feels the advantages of a calm one-pointedness. As this happens, the meditator is able to overcome mental habits antagonistic to calm collectedness, such as boredom due to hunger for novelty. By now, the meditator’s mind can remain undistracted for long periods.

On the Verge of Absorption

In the early stages of meditation, there is a tension between concentration on the object of meditation and distracting thoughts. The main distractions are sensual desires; ill will, despair, and anger; laziness and torpor; agitation and worry; and doubt and skepticism. With much practice, a moment comes when these hindrances are wholly subdued. There is then a noticeable quickening of concentration. At this moment, the mental attributes, such as one-pointedness and bliss, that will mature into full absorption simultaneously come into dominance. Each has been present previously to different degrees, but when they come, all at once they have special power. This is the first noteworthy attainment in concentrative meditation; because it is the state verging on full absorption, it is called “access” concentration.

This state of concentration is like a child not yet able to stand steady but always trying to do so. The mental factors of full absorption are not strong at the access level; their emergence is precarious, and the mind fluctuates between them and its inner speech, the usual ruminations and wandering thoughts. The meditator is still open to his senses and remains aware of surrounding noises and his body’s feelings. The meditation subject is a dominant thought but does not yet fully occupy the mind. At this access level, strong feelings of zest or rapture emerge, along with happiness, pleasure, and equanimity. There is also fleeting attention to the meditation subject as though striking at it, or more sustained focus on it, repeatedly noting it. Sometimes there are luminous shapes or flashes of bright light, especially if the meditation subject is a kasina or respiration. There may also be a sensation of lightness, as though the body were floating in the air. Access concentration is a precarious attainment. If not solidified into fuller absorption at the same sitting, it must be protected between sessions by avoiding distracting actions or encounters.
.
.
.
.
3. The Path of Insight

The Visuddhimagga sees mastery of the jhanas and tasting their sublime bliss as of secondary importance to punna, discriminating wisdom. Jhana mastery is part of a fully rounded training, but its advantages for the meditator are in making his mind wieldy and pliable, so speeding his training in punna. Indeed, the deeper jhanas are sometimes referred to in Pali, the language of the Visuddhimagga, as “concentration games,” the play of well-advanced meditators. But the crux of his training is a path that need not include the jhanas. This path begins with mindfulness (satipatthana), proceeds through insight (vipassana), and ends in nirvana.

Mindfulness

The first phase, mindfulness, entails breaking through stereotyped perception. Our natural tendency is to become habituated to the world around us, no longer to notice the familiar. We also substitute abstract names or preconceptions for the raw evidence of our senses. In mindfulness, the meditator methodically faces the bare facts of his experience, seeing each event as though occurring for the first time. He does this by continuous attention to the first phase of perception, when his mind is receptive rather than reactive. He restricts his attention to the bare notice of his senses and thoughts. He attends to these as they arise in any of the five senses or in his mind, which, in the Visuddhimagga, constitutes a sixth sense. While attending to his sense impressions, the meditator keeps reaction simply to registering whatever he observes. If any further comment, judgment, or reflection arises in the meditator’s mind, these are themselves made the focus of bare attention. They are neither repudiated nor pursued but simply dismissed after being noted. The essence of mindfulness is, in the words of Nyanaponika Thera, a modem Buddhist monk, “the clear and single-minded awareness of what actually happens to us and in us, at the successive moments of perception.”

Whatever power of concentration the meditator has developed previously helps him in the thorough pursuit of mindfulness. One-pointedness is essential in adopting this new habit of bare perception. The best level of jhana for practicing mindfulness is the lowest, that of access. This is because mindfulness is applied to normal consciousness, and from the first jhana on, these normal processes cease. A level of concentration less than that of access, on the other hand, can be easily overshadowed by wandering thoughts and lapses in mindfulness. At the access level, there is a desirable balance: Perception and thought retain their usual patterns, but concentration is powerful enough to keep the meditator’s awareness being diverted from steadily noting these patterns. The moments of entry to or exit from jhana are especially ripe for practicing insight. The mind’s workings are transparent in these moments, making them more vulnerable to the dear gaze of the mindful meditator.

The preferred method for cultivating mindfulness is to precede it with training in the jhanas. There is, however, a method called “bare insight” in which the meditator begins mindfulness without any previous success in concentration. In bare insight, concentration strengthens through the practice of mindfulness itself. During the first stages of bare insight, the meditator’s mind is intermittently interrupted by wandering thoughts between moments of mindful noticing. Sometimes the meditator notices the wandering, sometimes not. But momentary concentration gradually strengthens as more stray thoughts are noted. Wandering thoughts subside as soon as noticed, and the meditator resumes mindfulness immediately afterward. Finally, the meditator reaches the point at which his mind is unhindered by straying. When he notices every movement of the mind without break, this is the same as access concentration.

Kinds of Mindfulness

There are four kinds of mindfulness, identical in function but different in focus. Mindfulness can focus on the body, on feelings, on the mind, or on mind objects. Anyone of these serves as a fixed point for bare attention to the stream of consciousness. In mindfulness of the body, the meditator attends to each moment of his bodily activity, such as his posture and the movements of his limbs. The meditator notes his body’s motion and position regardless of what he does. The aims of his act are disregarded; the focus is on the bodily act itself. In mindfulness of feeling, the meditator focuses on his internal sensations, disregarding whether they are pleasant or unpleasant. He simply notes all his internal feelings as they come to his attention. Some feelings are the first reaction to messages from the senses, some are physical feelings accompanying psychological states, some are byproducts of biological processes. Whatever the source, the feeling itself is registered.

In mindfulness of mental states, the meditator focuses on each state as it comes to awareness. Whatever mood, mode of thought, or psychological state presents itself, he simply registers it as such. If, for instance, there is anger at a disturbing noise, at that moment he simply notes “anger.” The fourth technique, mindfulness of mind objects, is virtually the same as the one just described save for the level at which the mind’s workings are observed. Rather than noting the quality of mental states as they arise, the meditator notes the attentional objects that occupy those states, for example, “disturbing noise.” As each thought arises, the meditator notes it in terms of a detailed schema for classifying mental content. The broadest category on this list labels all thoughts as either hindrances to or helps toward enlightenment.

Any of these techniques of mindfulness will break through the illusions of continuity and reasonableness that sustain our mental life. In mindfulness, the meditator begins to witness the random units of mind stuff from which his reality is built. From these observations emerge a series of realizations about the nature of the mind. With these realizations, mindfulness matures into insight.

Beginning of Insight

The practice of insight begins at the point when mindfulness continues without lag. In insight meditation, awareness fixes on its object so that the contemplating mind and its object arise together in unbroken succession. This point marks the beginning of a chain of insights–mind knowing itself ending in the nirvanic state.

The first realization in insight is that the phenomena contemplated are distinct from mind contemplating them: Within the mind, the faculty whereby mind witnesses its own workings is different from the workings it witnesses. The meditator knows awareness is distinct from the objects it takes, but this knowledge is not at the verbal level as it is expressed here. Rather, the meditator knows this and each ensuing realization in his direct experience. He may have no words for his realizations; he understands but cannot necessarily state that understanding.

Continuing his practice of insight, after the meditator has realized the separate nature of awareness and its objects, he can, with further insight, gain a clear understanding that these dual processes are devoid of self. He sees that they arise as effects of their respective causes, not as the result of direction by any individual agent. Each moment of awareness goes according to its own nature, regardless of “one’s will.” It becomes certain to the meditator that nowhere in the mind can any abiding entity be detected. This is direct experience of the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, literally “not self,” that all phenomena have no indwelling personality. This includes even “one’s self.” The meditator sees his past and future life as merely a conditioned cause-effect process. He no longer doubts whether the “I” really exists; he knows “I am” to be a misconception. He realizes the truth of the words of the Buddha in the Pali Canon:

Just as when the parts are set together There arises the word “chariot,”
So does the notion of a being When the aggregates are present.

Continuing to practice insight, the meditator finds that his witnessing mind and its objects come and go at a frequency beyond his ken. He sees his whole field of awareness in continual flux. The meditator realizes that his world of reality is renewed every mind moment in an endless chain. With this realization, he knows the truth of impermanence (Pali: anicca) in the depths of his being.
Finding that these phenomena arise and pass away at every moment, the meditator comes to see them as neither pleasant nor reliable. Disenchantment sets in: What is constantly changing cannot be the basis for any lasting satisfaction. As the meditator realizes his private reality to be devoid of self and ever changing, he is led to a state of detachment from his world of experience. From this detached perspective, the impermanent and impersonal qualities of his mind lead him to see it as a source of suffering (Pali: dukkha).

Pseudonirvana: The “Ten Corruptions”

The meditator then continues without any further reflections. After these realizations, the meditator begins to see clearly the beginning and end of each successive moment of awareness. With this clarity of perception, there may occur:
• the vision of a brilliant light or luminous form
• rapturous feelings that cause goose flesh, tremor in the limbs, the sensation of levitation, and the other attributes of rapture
• tranquility in mind and body, making them light, plastic, and wieldy
• devotional feelings toward and faith in the meditation teacher, the Buddha, his teachings-including the method of insight itself-and the sangha, accompanied by joyous confidence in the virtues of meditation and the desire to advise friends and relatives to practice it
• vigor in meditating, with a steady energy neither too lax nor too tense
• sublime happiness suffusing the meditator’s body, an unprecedented bliss that seems never-ending and motivates him to tell others of this extraordinary experience
• quick and clear perception of each moment of awareness: Noticing is keen, strong, and lucid, and the characteristics of impermanence, nonself, and unsatisfactoriness are clearly understood at once.
• strong mindfulness so the meditator effortlessly notices every successive moment of awareness; mindfulness gains a momentum of its own
• equanimity toward whatever comes into awareness: No matter what comes into his mind, the meditator maintains a detached neutrality.
• a subtle attachment to the lights and other factors listed here and pleasure in their contemplation

The meditator is often elated at the emergence of these ten signs and may speak of them thinking he has attained enlightenment and finished the task of meditation. Even if he does not think they mark his liberation, he may pause to bask in their enjoyment. For this reason, this stage, called “Knowledge of Arising and Passing Away,” is subtitled in the Visuddhimagga “The Ten Corruptions of Insight.” It is a pseudonirvana. The great danger for the meditator is in “mistaking what is not the Path for the Path” or, in lieu of that, faltering in the further pursuit of insight because of his attachment to these phenomena. Finally, the meditator, either on his own or through advice from his teacher, realizes these experiences to be a landmark along the way rather than his final destination. At this point, he turns the focus of insight on them and on his own attachment to them.

Higher Realizations

As this pseudonirvana gradually diminishes, the meditator’s perception of each moment of awareness becomes clearer. He can make increasingly fine discrimination of successive moments until his perception is flawless. As his perception quickens, the ending of each moment of awareness is more clearly perceived than its arising. Finally, the meditator perceives each moment only as it vanishes. He experiences contemplating mind and its object as vanishing in pairs at every moment. The meditator’s world of reality is in a constant state of dissolution. A dreadful realization flows from this; the mind becomes gripped with fear. All his thoughts seem fearsome. He sees becoming, that is, thoughts coming into being, as a source of terror. To the meditator everything that enters his awareness–even what might once have been very pleasant-now seems oppressive. He is helpless to avoid this oppression; it is part of every moment.

At this point, the meditator realizes the unsatisfactory quality of all phenomena. The slightest awareness he sees as utterly destitute of any possible satisfaction. In them is nothing but danger. The meditator comes to feel that in all the kinds of becoming there is not a single thing that he can place his hopes in or hold onto. All of his awareness, every thought, every feeling, appears insipid. This includes any state of mind the meditator can conceive. In all the meditator perceives, he sees only suffering and misery.
Feeling this misery in all phenomena, the meditator becomes entirely disgusted with them. Though he continues with the practice of insight, his mind is dominated by feelings of discontent and listlessness toward all its own contents. Even the thought of the happiest sort of life or the most desirable objects seem unattractive and boring. He becomes absolutely dispassionate and adverse toward the multitude of mental stuff-to any kind of becoming, destiny, or state of consciousness.
.
.
.
.
Part Two
Meditation Paths: A Survey

.
.
.
.
14. Krishnamurti’s Choiceless Awareness

J. Krishnamurti, born in South India in the 18905, was educated in England under the guidance of theosophist Annie Besant. Krishnamurti’ s view of the human predicament is close to that of Buddhism. The mind and the world, says Krishnamurti, are in everlasting flux: “There is only one fact, impermanence.” The human mind clings to a “me” in the face of the insecurity of this flux. But the “me” exists only through identification with what it imagines it has been and wants to be. The “me” is “a mass of contradictions, desires, pursuits, fulfillments and frustrations, with sorrow outweighing joy.” One source of sorrow is the constant mental conflict between “what is” and “what should be.” The conditioned mind, in Krishnamurti’s analysis, flees from the facts of its impermanence, its emptiness, and its sorrow. It builds walls of habit and repetition, and pursues its dreams of the future or clings to that which has been. These defenses paralyze us. They keep us from living in the present moment.

Krishnamurti objects to methods of meditation, the solution so many others advocate. While the mind may try to escape from conditioning through meditation, Krishnamurti says, it simply creates in the very attempt another prison of methods to follow and goals to achieve. He opposes techniques of every kind and urges the putting aside of all authority and tradition: From them, one can only collect more knowledge, while understanding is needed instead. According to Krishnamurti, no technique can free the mind, for any effort by the mind only weaves another net. He, for example, emphatically opposes concentration methods (quoted in Coleman, 1971: p. 114):

By repeating Amen or Om or Coca-Cola indefinitely you obviously have a certain experience because by repetition the mind becomes quiet . . . It is one of the favorite gambits of some teachers of meditation to insist on their pupils learning concentration, that is, fixing the mind on one thought and driving out all other thoughts. This is a most stupid, ugly thing, which any schoolboy can do because he is forced to.

The “meditation” Krishnamurti advocates has no system, least of all “repetition and imitation.” He proposes as both means and end a “choiceless awareness,” the “experiencing of what is without naming.” This state is beyond thought; all thought, he says, belongs to the past, and meditation is always in the present. To be in the present, the mind must relinquish the habits acquired out of the urge to be secure; “its gods and virtues must be given back to the society which bred them.” One must let go all thought and all imagining. Advises Krishnamurti (1962: pp. 8-10):

Let the mind be empty, and not filled with the things of the mind. Then there is only meditation, and not a meditator who is meditating . . . the mind caught in imagination can only breed delusions. The mind must be clear, without movement, and in the light of that clarity the timeless is revealed.

Krishnamurti seems to advocate an end state only, a methodless method. But on closer scrutiny, he directly tells all who might hear the “how,” while at the same time he insists that “there is no how; no method.” He instructs us ‘Just to be aware of all this . . . of your own habits, responses.” His means is constantly watching one’s own awareness. Krishnamurti’s “nontechnique” is more clear from his instructions to a group of young Indian schoolchildren. He first told them to sit still with eyes closed and then to watch the progression of their thoughts. He urged them to continue this exercise at other times, including when walking or in bed at night:

You have to watch, as you watch a lizard going by, walking across the wall, seeing all its four feet, how it sticks to the wall, you have to watch it, and as you watch, you see all the movements, the delicacy of its movements. So in the same way, watch your thinking, do not correct it, do not suppress it-do not say it is too hard-just watch it, now, this morning.

He calls this careful attention “self-knowledge.” Its essence is “to perceive the ways of your own mind” so that the mind is “free to be still.” When the mind is still, one understands. The key to understanding is “attention without the word, the name.” He instructs, “Look and be simple”: Where there is attention without reactive thought, reality IS.

The process Krishnamurti proposes for self-knowledge duplicates mindfulness training. But Krishnamurti himself would most likely not condone this comparison because of the danger he sees inherent in seeking any goal through a technique. The process he suggests for stilling the mind springs spontaneously from the realization of one’s predicament, for to know “that you have been asleep is already an awakened state.” This truth, he insists, acts on the mind, setting it free. Krishnamurti (1962: p. 60) assures us:

When the mind realizes the totality of its own conditioning . . . then all its movements come to an end: It is completely still, without any desire, without any compulsion, without any motive.

This awakening is for Krishnamurti an automatic process. The mind discovers, rather, is caught up in, the solution “through the very intensity of the question itself.” This realization cannot be sought: “It comes uninvited.” Should one somehow experience the realization of which Krishnamurti speaks, he assures us that a new state would emerge. In this state, one is freed from conditioned habits of perception and cognition, devoid of self. To be in this state, says Krishnamurti, is to love: “Where the self is, love is not.” This state brings an “aloneness beyond loneliness” in which there is no movement within the mind, rather a pure experiencing, “attention without motive.” One is free from envy, ambition, and the desire for power, and loves with compassion. Here feeling is knowing, in a state of total attention with no watcher. Living in the eternal present, one ceases collecting impressions or experiences; the past dies for one at each moment. With this choiceless awareness, one is free to be simple; as Krishnamurti (Coleman, 1971: p. 95) puts it:

Be far away, far away from the world of chaos and misery, live in it, untouched . . . The meditative mind is unrelated to the past and to the future and yet is sanely capable of living with clarity and reason.

Part Three
Meditation Paths: Their Essential Unity

.
.
.
.
15. Preparation for Meditation

There is the least common ground among meditation systems on the preparatory groundwork the meditator requires. The systems surveyed here represent the full spectrum of attitudes toward the meditator’s need to prepare himself through some kind of purification. They range from the emphatic insistence on purification as a prelude to meditation voiced in the Bhakti, Kabbalist, Christian, and Sufi traditions to the views of Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti that such efforts are pointless if they entail avoiding normal life situations. Finally, there is the notion among, for example, TM and Zen schools that genuine purity arises spontaneously as a by-product of meditation itself. Tantrics of the Bon Margmark an extreme attitude toward purity in advocating the violation of sexual and other proprieties as part of spiritual practice.

Ideas about the best setting for meditation likewise cover a full spectrum. The Desert Fathers withdrew into the Egyptian wilderness to avoid the marketplace and worldly company; hermetic solitude was essential to their program of severe self-discipline. Modern Indian yogis seek out isolated mountains and jungle retreats for the same reasons. Westernized versions of Indian yoga such as TM, however, oppose any forced change in the meditator’s living habits; instead, meditation is simply inserted into an otherwise normal daily agenda. Intensive Zen practice is done ideally in a monastic setting, but, like TM, it can be part of a meditator’s normal daily round. Both Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti are emphatic that the settings of family, work, and the marketplace are the best context for inner discipline, providing the raw material for meditation.

In most classical meditation systems, however, a monastery or ashram is the optimal environment for meditation, monks or yogis the ideal companions, the role of the renunciate the highest calling, and scriptures the best reading. Modem systems such as TM direct the student to organizational ties and activities while he lives his ordinary life-style without imposing any major change. Krishnamurti stands alone among spiritual spokesmen in not advocating that the aspirant seek out the company of others on the same path, just as he objects to the aspirant’s looking for guidance from a teacher or master-essential elements in every other system.

In propagating no explicit doctrine, Krishnamurti is again unique. Though other schools such as Zen de-emphasize intellectual study, they all have both formal and informal teachings that students assimilate. In some traditions, formal study is a major emphasis: The Benedictine monk, for example, is to spend one-third of his day in study, the other two-thirds in prayer (or meditation) and manual labor.

16. Attention

The strongest agreement among meditation schools is on the importance of retraining attention. All these systems can be broadly categorized in terms of the major strategies for retraining attention described in the Visuddhimagga: concentration or mindfulness. By using the Visuddhimagga map as an example, we can see similarities of technique obscured by the overlay of jargon and ideology.

The differing names used among meditation systems to describe one and the same way and destination are legion. Sometimes the same term is used in special but very different technical senses by various schools. What translates into the English word “void,” for example, is used by Indian yogis to refer to jhana states and by Mahayana Buddhists to signify the realization of the essential emptiness of all phenomenon. The former usage denotes a mental state devoid of contents (e.g., the formless jhanas); the latter refers to the voidness of phenomenon. Another example: Phillip Kapleau (1967) distinguishes between zazen and meditation, saying that the two “are not to be confused”; Krishnamurti (1962) says only “choiceless awareness” is really meditation. The recognition that both zazen and choiceless awareness are insight techniques allows one to see that these seemingly unrelated remarks are actually emphasizing the same distinction: that between concentration and insight. By “meditation,” Kapleau means concentration, while Krishnamurti denies that concentration practices are within the province of meditation at all.

The criterion for classification is the mechanics of technique: (a) concentration,in which mind focuses on a fixed mental object; (b) mindfulness, in which mind observes itself; or (c) both operations present in integrated combination.

A second prerequisite for classification is internal consistency in descriptions. If it is a concentration technique, other characteristics of the jhana path are mentioned-for example, increasingly subtle bliss accompanying deepened concentration or loss of sense-consciousness. If it is an insight technique, other characteristics of insight practices, such as the realization of the impersonality of mental processes, must be present. If a combined technique, both concentration techniques as well as insight must be mixed and integrated, as in Theravadan vipassana.

In concentration, the meditator’s attentional strategy is to fix his focus on a single percept, constantly bringing back his wandering mind to this object. Some instructions for doing so emphasize an active assertion of the meditator’s will to stick with the target percept and resist any wandering. Others suggest a passive mode of simply regenerating the target percept when it is lost in the flow of awareness. Thus, an ancient Theravadan text exhorts the meditator to grit his teeth, clench his fists, and work up a sweat, struggling to keep his mind fixed on the movements of his respiration; a TM meditator, on the other hand, is told “easily start the mantra” each time he notices his mind has wandered. Though these approaches are opposite on a continuum of activity-passivity, they are equivalent means to constantly reorient to a single object of concentration and so develop one-pointedness. With mindfulness techniques whether Gurdjieff’s “self-remembering,” Krishnamurti’ s “self-knowledge,” or zazen’s “shikan-taza” – the attentional fundamentals are identical. They all entail continuous, full watchfulness of each successive moment, a global vigilance to the meditator’s chain of awareness.
.
.
.
.
Part Four
The Psychology of Meditation

.
.
.
.
Mental Factors.
.
.
.
Body and mind are seen as interconnected in Abhidhamma. While every factor affects both body and mind, the final set of healthy factors are the only ones explicitly described as having both physical and psychological effects. These are buoyancy (ahuta), pliancy (muduta), adaptability (kammannata), and proficiency (pagunnata). When these factors arise a person thinks and acts with a natural looseness and ease, performing at the peak of his or her skills. They suppress the unhealthy factors of contraction and torpor, which dominate the mind in such states as depression. These healthy factors make one able to adapt physically and mentally to changing conditions, meeting whatever challenges may arise.

In the Abhidhamma psychodynamic, healthy and unhealthy mental factors are mutually inhibiting; the presence of one suppresses its opposite. But there is not always a one-to-one correspondence between a pair of healthy and unhealthy factors; in some cases a single healthy factor will inhibit a set of unhealthy factors-nonattachment alone, for example, inhibits greed, avarice, envy, and aversion. Certain key factors will inhibit the entire opposite set; for example, when delusion is present, not a single positive factor can arise along with it.

It is a person’s kamma that determines whether he or she will experience predominantly healthy or unhealthy states. The particular combination of factors are the outcome of biological and situational influences as well as the carryover from one’s previous states of mind. The factors usually arise as a group, either positive or negative. In any given mental state the factors composing it arise in differing strengths; whichever factor is the strongest determines how a person experiences and acts at any given moment.

Although all the negative factors may be present, the state experienced will be quite different depending on whether, for example, it is greed or torpor that dominates the mind. The hierarchy of strength of the factors, then, determines whether a specific state will be negative or positive. When a particular factor or set of factors occurs frequently in a person’s mental states, then it becomes a personality trait. The sum total of a person’s habitual mental factors determines their personality type.

Personality Types

The Abhidhamma model for personality types follows directly from the principle that mental factors arise in differing strengths. If a person’s mind is habitually dominated by a particular factor or set of factors, these will determine personality, motives, and behavior. The uniqueness of each person’s pattern of mental factors gives rise to individual differences in personality over and above the broad categories of the main types. The person in whom delusion predominates is one of the common types, as are the hateful person, in whom aversion predominates, and the lustful person, in whom greed is strong. A more positive type is the intelligent person, in whom mindfulness and insight are strong.

The Abhidhamma view of human motivation stems from its analysis of mental factors and their influence on behavior. It is a person’s mental states that move the person to seek one thing and avoid another. His or her mental states guide every act. If the mind is dominated by greed, then this will become the predominant motive, and one will behave accordingly, seeking to gain the object of one’s greed. If egoism is a powerful factor, then the person will act in a self-aggrandizing manner. Each personality type is, in this sense, a motivational type also.

The Visuddhimagga devotes a section to recognizing the main personality types, since each kind of person must be treated in a way that suits his or her disposition. One method it recommends for evaluating personality type is careful observation of how a person stands and moves. The lustful or sensual person, for example, is said to be graceful in gait; the hateful person drags the feet as he or she walks; the deluded person paces quickly. A typical rule of thumb for this analysis goes (Vajiranana, 1962, p. 99):

Of the lustful the footprint is divided in the middle,
Of unfriendly man it leaves a trail behind.
The print of the deluded one is an impression quickly made . . .

It goes on to note that a Buddha leaves a perfectly even footprint, since his mind is calm and his body poised.

The author of the Visuddhimagga recognized that every detail of life is a clue to character; this fifth-century manual gives a remarkably complete behavioral profile for each personality type. The sensual person, it tells us, is charming, polite, and replies courteously when addressed. When such persons sleep, they make their beds carefully, lie down gently, and move little while asleep. They perform their duties artistically; sweep with smooth and even strokes, and do a thorough job. In general they are skillful, polished, tidy, and circumspect workers. They dress neatly and tastefully. When they eat they prefer soft, sweet food that is well cooked and served in sumptuous fashion; they eat slowly, take small bites, and relish the taste. On seeing any pleasing object they stop to admire it, and are attracted by its merits, but do not notice its faults. They leave such an object with regret. But on the negative side they are often pretentious, deceitful, vain, covetous, dissatisfied, lascivious, and frivolous.

The hateful person, by contrast, stands stiffly. These persons make their bed carelessly and in haste, sleep with their bodies tense, and reply in anger when awakened. When they work they are rough and careless; when they sweep the broom makes a harsh, scraping noise. Their clothes are likely to be too tight and unfinished. When they eat their preference is for pungent food that tastes sharp and sour; they eat hurriedly without noticing the taste, though they dislike food with a mild taste. They are uninterested in objects of beauty, and notice even the slightest fault while overlooking merits. They are often angry, full of malice, ungrateful, envious, and mean.

The third type is distinct from these two. The deluded person stands in a slovenly manner. Their beds are untidy, they sleep in a sprawl, and arise sluggishly, grunting with complaints. As workers they are unskillful and messy; they sweep awkwardly and at random, leaving bits of rubbish behind. Their clothes are loose and untidy. They do not care what they eat, and will eat whatever comes their way; they are sloppy eaters, putting large lumps of food in the mouth and smearing the face with food. They have no idea whether an object is beautiful or not, but believe whatever others tell them, and so praise or disapprove accordingly. They often show sloth and torpor, are easily distracted, are given to remorse and perplexity, but can also be obstinant and tenacious.

The Visuddhimagga goes on to specify the optimal conditions that should be arranged for persons of each type when they begin to meditate. The first goal in their training is to counteract their dominant psychological tendencies, and so bring their mind into balance. For this reason the conditions prescribed for each type are not those they would naturally choose. The cottage given to the sensual person, for example, is an unwashed grass hut that ought to be “spattered with din, full of bats, dilapidated, too high or too low, in bleak surroundings, threatened by lions and tigers, with a muddy, uneven path, where even the bed and chair are full of bugs. And it should be ugly and unsightly, exciting loathing as soon as looked at” (p. 109). The Visuddhimagga details the other conditions that suit the sensual person (Buddhaghosa, 1976, pp. 109-110):

Suitable garments have torn-off edges with threads hanging down, harsh to the touch like hemp, soiled, heavy and hard to wear. And the right kind of bowl for him is an ugly clay bowl or a heavy and misshappen iron bowl as unappetising as a skull. The right kind of road for him on which to wander for alms is disagreeable, with no village near, and uneven. The right kind of village for him is where people wander about as if oblivious of him. Suitable people to serve him are unsightly, ill-favoured, with dirty clothes, ill-smelling and disgusting, who serve him his gruel and rice as if they were throwing it rudely at him. The right kind of food is made of broken rice, stale buttermilk, sour gruel, curry of old vegetables, or anything at all that is merely for filling the stomach.

The suitable conditions for the hateful person, on the other hand, are as pleasant, comfortable, and easy as can be arranged. For the deluded person, things are to be made simple and clear, and quite as pleasant and comfortable as for the hateful person. In each case the environment is tailored to inhibit the kind of mental factor that usually dominates each personality type: the lustful person finds little to be greedy about, the hateful person little to despise, and for the deluded person things are clear. This program of environments designed to promote mental health is an ancient predecessor to what modem advocates of similar plans call “milieu therapy.” The Buddha also saw that different types of people would take more readily to different kinds of meditation, and so he devised a wide variety of meditation methods tailored to fit different personality types.
.
.
.
.
Meditation and Flow: Living in the Tao

The arahat, it is said, at all times and in every circumstance experiences an internal state of calm delight, is keenly attentive to all important aspects of the situation, and exhibits “skillful means” in response to the requirements of the moment. A similar state has been described in contemporary psychology by Csikzentmihalyi (1978), who has studied a broad range of intrinsically rewarding activities, all of which are marked by a similar experience, which he calls “flow.”

The key elements of flow are: (a) the merging of action and awareness in sustained concentration on the task at hand, (b) the focusing of attention in a pure involvement without concern for outcome, (c) self-forgetfulness with heightened awareness of the activity, (d) skills adequate to meet the environmental demand, and (e) clarity regarding situational cues and appropriate response. Flow arises when there is an optimal fit between one’s capability and the demands of the moment. The flow range is bordered on the one hand by anxiety-inducing situations where demand exceeds capability, and on the other hand by boredom where capability far exceeds demand.

In a related work Hartmann (1973) proposes a pattern of “inhibitory sharpening” in cortical arousal patterning, which represents optimal specificity of brain response to environmental demand. Focused attention entails clearly demarcated small areas of cortical excitation surrounded by areas of inhibition.

When blurring occurs in the brain’s demarcation of excitation and inhibition, there is a “spillover” of arousal to brain areas irrelevant to the task at hand. This, proposes Hartmann, characterizes a less balanced, less delicately adjusted cortical functioning, as is found during tiredness. Such an excitation “spillover” may also occur in acute anxiety, and may account for the lessened ability to perceive and respond in anxiety states. Finely tuned cortical specificity, on the other hand, characterizes well-rested waking functioning, allowing flexibility in meeting environmental demands with skilled response. This should be one aspect of the neurophysiologic substrate of flow.

As I interpret the flow model in terms of neurophysiology, Hartmann’s formulation points up a significant characteristic of flow: It requires both precision and fluidity in neurologic patterning, so that activation can change tailored to fluctuating situational requirements. The flow state is not a given pattern of ongoing arousal; it demands state-flexibility. The person who is chronically anxious, or habitually locked into any given configuration of arousal, is likely to confront more situations where his internal state is inappropriate for optimal fit with environmental demands-that is, non-flow. Changing circumstances require changing internal states.

There are two ways of increasing the likelihood of a flow experience: regulating environmental challenge to fit one’s skills, as in games, or self-regulation of internal capacities to meet a greater variation in external demands. I propose that meditation may be a functional equivalent of the latter strategy, producing a change in internal state which could maximize possibilities for flow.
“Some people,” notes Csikzentmihalyi, “enter flow simply by directing their awareness so as to limit the stimulus field in a way that allows the merging of action and awareness” -namely, attentional focus with the exclusion of distracting stimuli. This is identical to the basic skill practiced in meditation: it is the essential core of every meditative discipline (though techniques may vary according to the degree of attentional effort expended).

A constellation of findings on the enduring effects of meditation suggests a spectrum of changes, which include perceptual sharpening and increased ability to attend to a target stimulus while ignoring irrelevant stimuli; increased cortical specificity-that is, arousal of the cortical area appropriate to a given task with relative inhibition of irrelevant cortical zones, a pattern underlying skilled response; increased situation-specific cortical arousability with limbic inhibition; autonomic stability and lowering of anxiety level; and equanimity and evenness in responding to emotionally loaded and threatening stimuli.

To the extent that these diverse findings are true for any individual meditator, these traits should operate so as to lower the threshold for entering flow by bringing into its domain those instances where flow would otherwise have been excluded by misperception, distractability, arousal states unsuited to specific requirements, or functioning impaired by anxiety. As the range of flow and its sense of the intrinsic rewards of activity expands, there would be a concomitant shrinkage in the domains both of anxiety-inducing and boring situations in daily life. Indeed the fitting of one’s internal state to the demands of specific action, as in flow, has been an ideal of many Asian systems for self-development. In the words of the Zen master Unmon: “If you walk, just walk. If you sit, just sit. But whatever you do, don’t wobble.”

The phenomenology of flow shares many attributes of the meditation adept’s mental state as described in Abhidhamma: clarity of perception, alertness, equanimity; and pliancy, efficiency, and skill in action. To the degree that the lasting effects of meditation approach this ideal, the flow state can be seen as one benefit of meditation.

In this sense the goal of meditation training coincides in part with the qualities of skilled behavior and, more generally, with flow: action unimpeded by anxiety, clarity of perception, and accuracy of response, pleasure in action for its own sake. The nature of this experience is aptly capsulized in Merton’s translation of a poem by the Taoist master Chuang Tzu:

Ch’ui the draftsman
Could draw more perfect circles freehand
Than with a compass.

His fingers brought forth
Spontaneous forms from nowhere. His mind
Was meanwhile free and without concern.

No drives, no compulsions,
No needs, no attractions: Then your affairs
Are under control.
You are a free man.

How to Meditate

For the reader who would like to try meditating, here are some simple practices. You can try them all, but if you are going to continue to meditate, it is best to stick with the one you find most to your liking.

Find a comfortable, straight-back chair in a quiet room where you will not be disturbed. Sit up straight but relaxed. Keep your head, neck, and spine aligned, as though a large helium balloon was lifting your head up. Keeping your head upright will help your mind stay more alert-and alertness is essential in meditation.

Close your eyes and keep them closed until the session has ended. It’s best to sit for at least 15 minutes at a time, preferably longer-20 or 30 minutes or even an hour if possible. You should decide how long you plan to sit before you begin. That way you won’t yield so easily to the temptation to get up and do something “urgent” or “more useful.” Urges to stop meditating will come and go, and you should resist them. Set a timer or peek at your watch from time to time to see if the session is over.

Meditation on the Breath. One of the simplest practices is meditation on the breath. This practice cultivates both concentration and mindfulness. Although it was the method that reportedly brought the Buddha to enlightenment, it also has found a more mundane use in psychotherapy and behavioral medicines as a technique for becoming deeply relaxed. To begin, bring your awareness to your breath, noticing each inhalation and exhalation. You can watch the breath either by feeling the sensations at the nostrils or by noting the rise and fall of your belly as you breathe.

Try to be aware of each breath for its full duration: the entire in-breath, the entire out-breath. Do not try to control your breath-just watch it. If your breathing gets more shallow, let it be shallow. If it gets faster or slower, let it. The breath regulates itself.
While you meditate, your job is simply to be aware of it.

Whenever you notice that your mind has wandered, gently bring it back to your breath. During meditation, your contract with yourself is that everything other than your breath-thoughts, plans, memories, sounds, sensations-are distractions. Let go of your other thoughts. Whatever comes into your mind besides your breath is, for now, a distraction.

If you have trouble keeping your mind on your breath, you can help maintain your focus by repeating a word with each inhalation and exhalation. If you are watching your breath at the nostril, think “in” with each inhalation, “out” with each exhalation. If you are watching the rise and fall of your belly, think “rising” with each inhalation, “falling” with each exhalation. Be sure to stay in touch with the actual experience of breathing, not merely the repetition of the words.

Mantra. Some of the most widely used concentrative meditations employ mantras as the objects of focus. These techniques, as we have seen, are found in virtually every major spiritual tradition, from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to Buddhism and Hinduism. In modern times, the technique has been adapted as the “relaxation response” to help people enter a relaxed state.
Pick a simple word or sound that has a positive meaning to you. Many people select a phrase that has spiritual symbolism for them, such as “adonai”, “kyrie eleison”, or “one.” In Hinduism, names of God such as “Ram” are common; in Tibetan Buddhism, the mantra “am Mane Padme Hum” is often used.

Once you decide what mantra you will use, the directions are similar to those for the breath meditation. Sit quietly and repeat your mantra mentally to yourself without making any actual sound. Whenever your mind wanders, bring it back to the mantra. Let go of all other thoughts, letting the mantra fill your consciousness.

Mindful Breathing. To cultivate mindfulness, start with the simple meditation on the breath described above. Once you have gained a fairly firm hold on meditating on the breath, you can expand the practice into a more general mindfulness-a meditation on the mind itself. In mindfulness meditation, everything that goes on in your mind becomes the object of meditation.
Again, use the breath as your basic object of meditation. But now, whenever your mind wanders, be aware of the nature of its wandering. In other words, use your distractions as objects of meditation.

For example, if your mind wanders to a sound you hear, label that distraction “hearing.” If your mind wanders to a thought, call it “thinking”; if to a memory, label it “remembering”; if to a sensation in your body, call it “feeling.” Each time you have labeled the distraction, bring your mind back to the breath once again.

Mindful Eating. With mindfulness, any activity can be meditative if you pay full and careful attention to what you are doing. Take, for instance, eating. The method in mindful eating is to pay careful and full attention to every aspect of the experience.

Begin by sitting still and bringing your attention to your breath, watching the in- and out-breath. When you feel collected and still, begin to eat.

It helps to eat very slowly, breaking down each movement so that you can attend to each nuance of sensation, sound, taste, and movement. For example, as you reach for a bite of food, do it at a speed in which you can note the stretch and tension of the muscles in your arm and hand and the feel of the food or fork against your skin. A void the tendency to go on “automatic,” to reach for the next bite before you finish with the current one.

Let’s say you’re going to eat almonds. Pick up one and hold it between your fingers. Feel the texture of its skin against your fingertips and the shape and pressure while holding it. Look at it: Notice its color and outline and the grooves along its sides. Slowly raise the almond to your mouth. Notice the moment you can first smell it. If you’re attentive, you may notice you’ve started salivating before the almond reaches your mouth. Be aware of the first brush of the almond on your lips.

Next, put it in your mouth and start chewing slowly and deliberately. Notice the feel of your teeth biting through the almond and the work of your tongue as it moves the chunks of almond inside your mouth. Note the nut’s taste. Listen to the sounds of chewing. Tune in to the sensations created by every bite.

Notice how the chewed almond bits mix with saliva as you swallow. Be sure to chew all the bits completely and to swallow them before you take another almond. Continue eating each remaining almond with the same careful deliberateness. Stay calm and focused throughout.

Mindful Walking. Take your shoes off. Stand in one place and feel the sensations in your feet as they touch the ground. Stay with whatever you feel at each moment. As you are about to take a step forward, notice your mental intention to step forward. Slowly lift your foot, feeling every sensation-lightness, suspension, tension, motion whatever feelings are present.

It’s best to start at a slow pace so you can pay attention to the sensations. Eventually, you’ll be able to go faster and yet maintain awareness. Move your foot forward, place it on the ground again, and shift your weight onto it. All the time, be aware of the sensations in this movement. When thoughts arise, don’t be concerned with their content. Bring your mind back to your foot feelings and stay with this simple experience of walking. Continue to do this as long as you like-five minutes to half an hour or longer.

At first, to keep your mind focused, it helps to label the action. For example, you can say silently, “Up-forward-down,” noticing the feeling of weight as it shifts from one foot to the other. Later you can simplify the process by eliminating the words. Just concentrate on the sensation.

To observe the process of mind in greater detail, note the intention that precedes each motion, as well as the sensations themselves. Thus: intending to lift, lifting; intending to move forward, moving forward; intending to place, placing; intending to shift, shifting.

Finally, you can develop a direct perception of the entire routine-intent, movement, sensations-without labeling any of it.

For those with Little Dust: Pointers on the Teachings of Ramana Maharshi – Arthur Osborne

.
.
.
.
The Direct Path
.
.
.
.
The ways of undertaking this task are innumerable, but it will suffice here to divide them into three general categories: exoteric religion, indirect spiritual paths, and the Direct Path of Self-inquiry.

The way of exoteric religion progressively replaces egoism by submission to the will of God. Its four cardinal precepts are faith, love, humility, and good deeds. As far as they are complied with, these precepts effectively lead people toward Self realization, although this is not consciously envisaged. True, the goal is not likely to be attained in a single lifetime, but in God’s patience a lifetime is very little. Faith strengthens the intuitional conviction of the reality of God or the Self. Humility, its counterpart, weakens the belief in the ego and lessens the importance attached to it. Love strives to surrender the ego to God and its welfare to others. Good deeds deny egoism in practice and are both the fruit and proof of love and humility. Therefore, Bhagavan sometimes encouraged this way when speaking to those whose nature did not draw them to a more conscious sadhana.

When we practice indirect sadhana, we strengthen, purify, and harmonize the mind by various techniques, enabling it to hold to the quest of the Self, which is often conceived as Father, Mother, or Lover. Bhagavan never denied the efficacy of such methods. Once, when a woman said that Self-inquiry did not help her and asked whether she could follow some other way, he replied, ”All ways are good.” However, since he was opening a more direct and potent path-one more suited to the conditions of modern life, he did consistently question people following other, less direct paths. He referred to them as “the thief turned policeman, to catch the thief that is himself.” The thief is the ego or mind, which usurps the reality of the Self, and by these indirect methods of sadhana, the mind is trained as a policeman to catch and condemn itself.

On such a path there is the danger that the thief turned policeman may acquire police powers, and then its thievish nature may reassert itself and do far more harm than it ever could before. The ego may acquire powers and perceptions beyond the physical and then persuade itself and others that it is the Self and become that most terrible scourge, a false guru, consuming others to feed its unconfessed vanity. Or, it may simply entrench itself at some high post that it imagines to be final but which, beautiful though it may be, is no more final than the physical body is. In any case, the mind must at last be extinguished in the Self, which alone exists. Bhagavan taught that it is simpler and more direct to strive to do so from the beginning by awakening awareness of the Self and yielding [the ego] before it.

This is the Direct Path as taught by Bhagavan: to forget the ego and discover the Self, not as one self discovering another, but by awakening awareness of the Self, by beginning, occasionally and imperfectly at first, but ever more constantly and powerfully, to be the Self. In this sense “knowing is being.”
.
.
.
.
After some practice, this meditation awakens a current of awareness, a consciousness of “I” in the Heart-not the ego sense, but a feeling of the essential “I” who is the Universal Self, unaffected by good or ill fortune or by sickness or health. We should develop this consciousness by constant effort until it becomes increasingly frequent and finally a constant undercurrent to all the actions of life. Then, if we can stop our egoism from interfering, this awareness may deepen into an ever vaster peace beyond all understanding, until the moment when it consumes the ego and remains as the abiding realization of Self.

If various thoughts come up during meditation, one should not get caught up by them and follow them, but look at them objectively and inquire, “Where did this thought come from, and why, and to whom?” As they pass away like clouds across a clear sky, each thought leads back to the basic “I” -thought: “Who am I?” The very essence of the meditation requires that there is no mental or verbal answer. There cannot be, since the Self transcends thought and words. The ego is seeking what is before its origin and beyond its source, and the answer will not be grasped by it but will grasp and devour it.

I came to devour Thee but Thou has devoured me; now there is peace, Arunachala.
-Arunchala Aksharamanamalai (v. 8), by Sri Ramana Maharshi.

The beginning of the answer involves awakening a current of awareness, a sense of Being, in the heart. This awareness is neither physical nor mental, though body and mind are both aware of it. We can no more describe it than we can describe hearing to a deaf person.

If impure thoughts arise during meditation, we should look at them and dispel them in the same way, this way base tendencies are accordingly recognized and dissipated. As Bhagavan has said:

All kinds of thoughts arise in meditation. That is only right, for what lies hidden in you is brought out. Unless it rises up, how can it be destroyed?

Just as Self-inquiry is not a mental exercise, so also it is not a mantra. When questioned, Bhagavan replied quite definitely that it should not be repeated as a mantra, but used in the manner described.

Every spiritual path requires both purity of living and intensity of spiritual effort, and the vichara given by Bhagavan serves as a technique of pure and dispassionate living no less than as a technique of meditation. If anything happens to offend or flatter you, ask, “Who is injured, who is pleased or angry, who am I?” Therefore, by use of vichara, the “I-am-the doer illusion” can be destroyed and one can take part in everyday life aloofly, without vanity or attachment. Bhagavan represented it as the bank cashier who handles enormous sums of money unemotionally and yet quite efficiently, knowing that it is not his money.

In the same impersonal way, we can attend to all the affairs of life, knowing that the real Self is unaffected by them; and every attack of greed, anger, or desire can be dispelled by vichara. It must be dispelled, because it is no use repeating that one is the Self and acting as though one were the ego. Real, even partial, awareness of the Self weakens egoism. Egoism, whether expressed as vanity, greed, or desire, proves that recognition of the Self is merely mental.

In adapting an ancient path to modern conditions, Bhagavan in effect created a new path. The ancient path of Self Inquiry was pure Jnana Marga, to be followed by the recluse in silence and solitude, withdrawn from the outer world. Bhagavan made it a path to be followed invisibly in the world, in the conditions of modern life.

He never encouraged anyone to give up life in the world. He explained that such a giving up would only exchange the thought “I am a householder” for the thought “I am a sanyasin,” whereas what is necessary is to reject the thought “I am the doer” completely and remember only “I-am.” This approach can be done by means of vichara, equally while in the city or in the forest. Only inwardly can a person leave the world by leaving the ego-sense; only inwardly can one withdraw into solitude by abiding in the universal solitude of the Heart. This represents true solitude because there are no others, however many forms the Self may assume. Life in the world is not merely permissible, but a useful part of the Karma Marga inherent in the way of Bhagavan.

The outer discipline of Self-inquiry requires a constant check on actions and on the motive from which they spring. Sincerely and constantly applied, it removes the need for any formal code of conduct, for it strikes directly at egoism in every action and reaction. The impulses of the ego will not change immediately. An insult will still cause anger and a flattering remark, pleasure. Attachment to property and comfort will still continue and the senses will still clamor, but all such impulses will be exposed for what they are, so that one is able to recognize egoism and feel shame and reluctance over each of its manifestations. From that point the eradication of egoism will begin, a task demanding constant effort and remembering.
.
.
.
.
A phenomenon such as Bhagavan’s own immediate realization of the Self is extremely rare, and he never led others to expect that it would happen to them. Actually, to desire success or even to think about it is itself an impediment, since it means desiring achievement for the ego instead of trying to eliminate the ego through the inquiry, “Who am I?”

The vibrant awareness of the Self becomes more frequent and uninterrupted until it awakens the moment one sits in meditation. In time it becomes constant, not only in hours of meditation,. but underlying all the actions of life. In proportion, as awareness of the Self becomes stronger and more continuous, the ego grows weaker and subsequently purified in preparation for its final immolation. Bhagavan said:

The moment the ego-self tries to know itself, it changes in character; it begins to partake less and less of the body, in which it is absorbed, and more and more of pure consciousness, the Self or Atman.

The Forty Verses on Reality, composed by Bhagavan, is the doctrine of the Direct Path. In verses 29 and 30, he thus succinctly describes it:

The path of Knowledge is only to dive inward with the mind, not uttering the word “I,” and to question whence, as “I,” it rises. To meditate “This is not I” or “That I am” may be an aid, but how can it form the inquiry?

When the mind, inwardly inquiring “Who am I?” attains the Heart, something of itself manifests as “I-I,” so that the individual “I” must bow in shame. Though manifesting, it is not “I” by nature but Perfection, and this is the Self.

.
.
.
.
Self-Inquiry
.
.
.
Although the term “meditation” is conventionally used for Self-inquiry, it does not fall into the dictionary definition of the term. Meditation requires and object, something to meditate on, whereas inquiry focuses only on the subject. You are not looking for anything new, anything outside yourself, but simply concentrating on Being, on your self, on the pure “I am” of you. It is not about thinking, but about suspending thoughts while retaining consciousness.

Normally, when thought subsides, you go to sleep; and when one first begins inquiry the mind often does try to do so. An attack of overwhelming sleepiness may come over you. However, as soon as you stop the inquiry and turn to another occupation sleepiness passes, thereby proving that it was not real tiredness, but an instinctive resistance to thought-free consciousness. One simply has to be vigilant against it.

Thoughts themselves are a far more persistent obstruction. They rush into the mind in an unending stream. If you drive them out, others slip in from behind. You believe you are free from thought and before you notice it, you are indulging others. The only way out is through persistence and constant alertness. One should not get carried away by thoughts, but see them aloofly like clouds passing over a clear sky, while asking, “What is this thought? Who did it come to? To me, but who am I?” This way, you bring your mind back to the inquiry. The mind is like a monkey rushing from tree to tree, ever restless, never content to be still. It has to be checked from its restlessness and held firmly to inquiry.

However, the wandering nature of the mind and the unending succession of thoughts are not the obstruction; it is also the ego-drive behind many of the thoughts. This gives them power and makes them far harder to dispel. You may convince yourself intellectually that there is no ego and may have occasional brief glimpses of Being-Consciousness, which is unruffled happiness at the time the ego is absent. But still you are drawn to a particular person, or want to impress a special friend, or wish to dominate a specific group; you may resent criticism, feel insecure in your job, cling to your possessions, or hanker after money or power. All of these are affirmations of the ego, which you believe does not exist. So long as they exist, it does, too. If there is no ego, who feels anger, desire, resentment, or frustration?

This means that inquiry is not merely a cold investigation but a battle; every path is in every religion. The ego, or apparent ego, has to be eradicated. This is the one essential aspect common to all religions. The only difference is how to do it. Some paths will have you attack various vices individually and cultivate opposing virtues, but Self-inquiry is more direct. These progressive methods are like lopping the branches off a tree: So long as the roots and trunk remain, fresh ones will grow. Self-inquiry aims at uprooting the tree itself. If the ego is deprived of one outlet, others will develop. However, if the ego itself is dissolved, the vices in which it found expression will collapse like deflated balloons. What is required is constant vigilance until the ego is finally dissolved.

Self-inquiry, which aims at ego dissolution, does not teach one theory or doctrine. It is quite possible to know all the doctrine that is necessary before starting: “Being simply is and you are That.” A certain amount of practice brings an increase in the frequency and length of the experience of timeless Being, which is also pure awareness and unruffled happiness. Although not based in the mind, the mind is aware of it. Although not physical, the body feels it as a vibration or a waveless calm. Once awakened, it begins to appear spontaneously, even when you are not “meditating.” It exists as an undercurrent to whatever you are doing in your daily routine, whether talking or even thinking.

Concerning approach, this is an important point. It explains why Bhagavan preferred his devotees to follow the quest in their everyday lives. Sitting daily in “meditation” is useful and, in most cases, indispensable, but it is not enough. So far as possible, fixed times should be set aside for it, since the mind accustoms itself to them, just as it does to physical functions like eating and sleeping, and therefore responds more readily. For people who are bound by professional and domestic obligations, just after waking in the morning and before going to sleep at night are excellent times. But apart from that, Bhagavan would tell people to always practice inquiry, to ask themselves, “Who is doing this?” -to engage in activity without the “I-am-the-doer illusion.” Keeping up this attitude of mind throughout the day’s activities is equivalent to remaining alert, welcoming the sense of Being whenever it comes. Constant alertness and remembering is necessary when not formally “meditating.” Initially, there will be frequent forgetting. The “current of awareness” needs to be cultivated and fostered. It is very seldom that there is accomplishment without effort.
.
.
.
.
The problem that philosophers and theologians set for themselves is unreal, being based on the false assumption of an ego to be predestined. Additionally, the problem is insoluble, because the two alternatives are quite irreconcilable. If anything currently exists in the divine foreknowledge of an omniscient God, then it cannot be changed by free will. If this foreknowledge does not exist, then God does not know what is going to happen and is not omniscient. If life is predestined, it is like sitting in a movie theater and watching a film. We may not know what is coming next, but the ending has already been filmed according to the screenplay. However, if there is free will, it is like watching an impromptu television show in which the actors and camera operators have no idea of what will take place next.

The compromise that some theorists are fond of suggesting-that God has only predetermined important matters and left the unimportant for people to fill in-is too unintelligent and anthropomorphic to even merit refutation. In any case, who decides what is important? And on what scale of values? A young man is invited to the capital city of his country to be interviewed for a job in the Foreign Service and he decides to go. Obviously, this is an important decision since it will change his cultural and social environment, the person he marries, the children he fathers, and the whole course of his life. On his way to the airline office to book a seat on a plane, he meets a friend who invites him to travel to the capital in his car. When the young man accepts the offer, it seems like a relatively unimportant decision, which our hypothetical Grandfather God might well leave to the young man to decide for himself. However, he does not get the job, so the important decision turns out to have been unimportant. In the meanwhile, the plane he was scheduled to take to the interview crashes and all the passengers are killed.

Thus, the “unimportant decision” he made gives him thirty or forty more years of life and is vitally important not only to him but to the woman he is going to marry, the children he will father, their future wives, children, and business partners-in fact, to an unending succession of people, generation after generation. The whole theory is too absurd for discussion.

People cling to such absurdities because there is nothing a person finds more difficult than facing up to the truth of anatta (no-ego). Even people who accept it theoretically often find some way of avoiding its implications, perhaps because they imagine that the alternative to ego-identification would be mere nothingness.

Yet life itself proves that this is not so, since everyone experiences no-ego in the state of deep dreamless sleep and still retains a sense of existence. The only question is “who” or “what” experiences that egoless state? Actually, the alternative to the illusion of an ego is the Reality of inexhaustible, radiant Being.

So long as the appearance of an ego remains, so does the appearance of free will; in fact, they are mutually dependent. Therefore, Maharshi said:

Free will exists together with the individuality. As long as the individuality lasts, so long is there free will. All the scriptures are based on this fact and advise directing the free will in the right channel.
-The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words

In the actual affairs of life, those who have not realized anatta go by appearances, and it makes practically no difference whether they believe in predestination or not. In either case, they do not know what is predestined and make decisions using their initiative, and act according to their nature in doing so. Any attempt to limit their conduct on the pretext of predestination would involve the presumptuous and patently untrue corollary that they know what is predestined. For instance, suppose you are sitting on the bank of a river when a girl falls into the water. To say, “It is her destiny to drown,” and to let her drown would be a presumptuous supposition that this is her destiny. All that you know up to that moment is that it is the child’s destiny to fall into the water within reach of an adult (yourself who is capable of rescuing her. Since what is to happen is bound up with your own decisions, it makes no practical difference whether these do not yet exist or are simply not yet known to you. In either case, the decisions are made in ignorance of the outcome.

All the activities that the body is to go through are determined when it first comes into existence. It does not rest with you to accept or reject them. The only freedom you have is to turn your mind inward and renounce activities there.
-The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words

.
.
.
.
To Those With Little Dust

It is related (and the story is no less significant whether historically true or not) that after attaining Enlightenment the Buddha’s first impulse was to abide in the effulgence of Bliss without turning back to convey the incommunicable to humankind. Then he reflected, “There are some who are clear-sighted and do not need my teachings, and some whose eyes are clouded with dust who will not heed it though given, but between these two there are also some with but little dust in their eyes, who can be helped to see; and for the sake of these I will go back among mankind and teach.”

This story shows that there is a more satisfactory state than that of ignorant, confused, unguided, frustrated modern humanity, and a higher, more satisfying, and more durable alternative than any provided by wealth or luxury, art or music, or the love between man and woman. Such a state can be attained in his lifetime, and the purpose of all religions has been to lead people towards it, although in many different ways. I say “towards” rather than “to” because although the supreme state may not be attained in this lifetime, merely approaching it can bring peace of mind and a sense of well being not otherwise attainable.

Mystics often have had unsought glimpses of a higher or the highest state; those who are psychic have out-of-the-body and other experiences closed to the ordinary person; but all this means little in the quest for Realization. Such experiences may help at certain stages of certain types of paths, but they may also hinder and distract, like the sirens that Odysseus heard but against whom he made his crew plug their ears. If the pleasures of the physical world are seductive, those of the subtle world are certainly no less so. Christ said that if one attains the kingdom of heaven, all else shall be added, but that is after attaining. If one seeks all else beforehand, one is not likely to attain.

Those who have such powers and experiences do not find the quest to be shorter and less arduous than those who do not have them. Realization is not something like music, for which some are by nature more gifted than others. It is fundamentally different, since music requires the development of a faculty that is stronger in some and weaker in others. Realization, however, involves the discovery of and identification with one’s true Self, which contains all faculties.

We cannot easily predict who can and will understand spiritual truth. It has certainly nothing in common with intellectual ability, as commonly understood. Indeed, the scriptures of the different religions agree by warning us that neither intellect nor learning is any qualification. In fact, they can generally be a hindrance:

It is rather the unlearned who are saved than those whose ego has not yet subsided in spite of their learning. -The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi

The humble knowledge of oneself is a surer way to God than deep researches after science.
-The Imitation of Christ, by Thomas a Kempis

A scientist may fail to understand spiritual science, a philosopher may be unreceptive to the Perennial Philosophy, while a psychologist may remain ignorant of what underlines the mind. On the other hand, a spiritual master mayor may not be an intellectual: Ramana Maharshi was, but Sri Ramakrishna was an ecstatic with the mind rather of a peasant than a philosopher. St. Ignatius Loyola was temperamentally so averse to study that it required immense effort for him to gain the degree without which the Church would not allow him to teach, and he was middle-aged before he did so.

While theoretical understanding is not enough, neither is belief in the sense of a conviction that this or that will happen after death. What is needed is to set one’s hand to the plough, as Christ put it, to undertake the true alchemy, transmuting the dross in one’s nature to gold.

This is the quest of the Sangrail(Holy Grail), the search for the elixir of life, the eternal youth of the Spirit. It requires a willingness to open one’s heart to the truth, to surrender oneself and give up the ego, and to conceive of the possibility of its nonexistence. It is the pathway of heroes, the way from trivialities to grandeur. Its consummation is like waking up from a dream into the ever-existent Reality.

Where Charity Begins

I have written that the quest for Realization is the great I enterprise, the true goal of life. Yet one often hears the objection, “But isn’t it more important to help others?” ! Although some who make this objection doubtless do so in good I faith, it is essentially a hypocritical attack on spirituality. It I goes back to the nineteenth-century socialists who said, “First things first. Let us first remove people’s poverty, then there will be time to consider their spiritual needs.” Well, they partially succeeded. There is very little poverty left in northeastern Europe. However, did Europeans then turn to spiritual support? Not at all. The anti-spiritual trend only
accelerated and became more unabashed. Workers who acquired leisure, security, and competence had less time, not more, to devote to spirituality.

In fact, it is not true that welfare facilitates religion, that poverty impedes it, or that material needs are the “first things” to be attended to. Christ taught the exact opposite when the rich, young man approached him. He counseled the young man to give his property away and become a mendicant. If poverty can be an impediment, so also can prosperity. Indeed, it might well be said that in a welfare state prosperity is the opiate of the people, lulling them into a false sense of security.

One sign of the animus behind the do-good objection is that it is only used against those who turn to a spiritual path. If a person declares that his absorbing interest in life is music, business, or politics, no one will raise an objection. However, objections are raised when someone turns to religion. Why do people suppose that one who is striving to subjugate or destroy the ego is doing less to help others than one who allows it free-play? Rather, such a person is likely to do more, helping others in an unobtrusive way rather than engaging in organized charities. In general, there is likely to be less vanity and more genuine goodwill in this person’s behavior.
.
.
.
.
As long as there is the concept of an “I,” there is a concept of others. As long as there are others to help, there is an “I” to help them and therefore no Self-realization. The two go together; they cannot be separated.

OTHERS
What will they think of this?
What will they say to that?
So others arise.
When there are others there’s I.
In truth there just IS.
Isness alone is;
No others, no I, only a dance, a rhythm, Only a being.

Of course, one has to play the game of “I and others,” acting as though they existed. It is as if (as can sometimes happen) one had a dream and took part in its events while at the same time being awake enough to know that it was a dream.

What, then, is this vow to help others before seeking one’s own Realization? Nothing but a resolve to remain in a state of ignorance (avidya). And how will that help others? It means clinging to the ego one has sworn to dissolve, regarding it as supremely wise and beneficent! In the language of theism, it reveals an overwhelming arrogance, the decision to show God how to run His world or to run it for Him.

Whatever may have been the traditional Mahayana discipline, this urge to help others by being a guru before one’s time is one of
the greatest pitfalls for the aspirant today. According to Milarepa, one of the great Mahayana saints,

One should not be over hasty in setting out to help others before one has realized the Truth; if one does, it is a case of the blind leading the blind.
-The Life of Milarepa, Tibet’s Great Yogi,
by Lobzang Jivaka and John Murray

We may find some compassion in vowing to help others, but more likely we will find more vanity and egoism. Few things so flatter the ego as the dream of being a guru surrounded by the adulation of disciples. Few things so impede an aspirant as turning one’s energy outwards to guide others when it should still be turned inwards to oneself. In spiritual things it is true, as the nineteenth-century economists falsely asserted about material things, that you help others most by helping yourself. Maharshi never indulged such people. He told them, “Help yourself first before you think of helping others.”
.
.
.
.
Karma Marga
.
.
.
.
The position of a Hindu sadhu or sannyasin is quite different. On renouncing property, family, and caste, he becomes a homeless wanderer. Nobody is responsible for his maintenance. He is expected to wander, begging for food and accepting whatever is given. If his presence makes a strong impression, followers may gather around him and attend to his needs. If he has some skill that is valued, he may accept food and shelter from an ashram in exchange for his services. He may even accept an allowance from his former family or from some benevolent householder but, generally, he has no material security, no routine of life, and no regular occupation.

During Maharshi’s lifetime, one often heard people ask his permission to renounce the world and go forth as sadhus, but I never once
heard him consent:

Why do you think you are a householder? The similar thought that you are a sannyasi will haunt you even if you go forth as one. Whether you continue in the household or renounce it and go to live in the forest, your mind haunts you. The ego is the source of thought. It creates the body and world and makes you think of being a householder. If you renounce it [your home life], it will only substitute the thought of renunciation for that of the family, and the environment of the forest for that of the household. But the mental obstacles are always there for you. They even increase greatly in the new surroundings. Change of environment is no help. The one obstacle is the mind, and this must be overcome whether in the home or in the forest. If you can achieve this in the forest, why not in the home? So why change the environment? Your efforts can be made even now, whatever be the environment.
-The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words

Notice that Bhagavan did not say, “The mental obstacles remain the same for you in the new surroundings,” but “They even increase greatly in the new surroundings.” In fact, I have seen a number of sad cases of this. A person’s professional work keeps the mind occupied on the surface while at the same time permitting an undercurrent of remembering or meditation. Bhagavan urged people to foster this undercurrent, to do one’s work impersonally, asking oneself, “Who does this work? Who am I?” As an illustration, he spoke about the actor who plays his part on the stage quite well, although knowing at heart that he is not the person he acts. Therefore, the actor does not get elated if the playwright has allotted that person final success, or dejected if he has allotted failure or a tragic death.

A person’s professional work may be irksome; it often is. One may feel disappointed at how much more progress could be made if the whole day was free for spiritual practice. But before taking the drastic step of renouncing life in the world, one should try to occupy the mind exclusively with meditation or whatever spiritual practice one performs from the time of waking in the morning until sleep can no longer be held off at night. One will find that one cannot hold the mind persistently to the quest even for one whole day. Only at a high level of development does the mind cease to demand outer activity. Deprived of the irksome but relatively harmless activity of professional work, it will turn instead to more injurious activities such as daydreaming, planning, scheming, or social trivialities and, as Maharshi said, the mental obstacles will “increase greatly.”

Nor can we fill the gap by reading. We may find a certain amount of reading helpful and, in many cases, necessary, especially at the beginning, but excessive reading can become a drug, dulling the mind and distracting from real spiritual effort. Once the mind is convinced of the basic truth of Identity, why reconvince it over and over again? Why study techniques that one is not going to use; theories that one does not need? Sometimes something one reads may come as a useful reminder and spur one on to greater or wiser effort, but much of it acts just like a drug to keep the mind occupied. Reading may even lead to gluttony for useless facts, pride in possession of them, or arrogance at the thought of understanding more than the writer.

Family ties may also seem irksome. It may appear that one would have a freer mind for sadhana without them. Yet, in most cases, we can make family life a discipline for subduing egoism, which is the purpose of sadhana. Removing family ties all too often invites an upsurge of egoism, leaving a person free to think exclusively of oneself-the impression one is making on others, one’s progress on the path, even one’s physical health and material needs.

Of course, if a sannyasin really renounces everything and has to beg and cook his food, that may prove occupation enough, though not necessarily a nobler or more spiritually profitable activity than that which he has renounced. If, however, one retains sufficient means of subsistence to escape this and the mind remains without any occupation other than sadhana, there is grave danger of deterioration. Desire, which one may rashly thought to have conquered, may rise again. One may also fill the gap by setting oneself up as a guide to others when one should still be concentrating on one’s own progress. One may fall victim to undesirable activity or come under the domination of a false guide. Finally, one may simply sink into boredom and trivialities from which one will eventually seek escape by renouncing the quest entirely. One who has seen so many cases of renunciation leading to deterioration can only advise people earnestly to refrain and put up with the irksome but protective outer shell of professional and family life.

Moreover, spiritual growth, like the growth of a seed, takes place in the dark. Grace sinks down into it like gentle rain. Progress may be the greatest when least visible, even when one is dejected and thinks one is falling back. To strip away the outer cover of routine life and try to subject ourselves to the full, day-long glare of the conscious mind may do us incalculable harm. From this point of view, also, it is better not to renounce.

This caution, however, does not apply to Christians or Buddhists thinking of becoming monks since, as I said above, the monastic routine of life is, in most cases, quite an active Karma Marga, whether in the original or the modern meaning of the word.
.
.
.
.
The Problem of Suffering

Some theorists are perplexed by what they call “the problem of suffering.” The philosopher Hume even thought he had discovered in it a weapon to destroy religion. God, he argued, in order to be God, must be both good and omnipotent, but the existence of suffering proves that God either does not want to prevent it or is unable to, which is to say that God is either not good or not omnipotent, and in either case is not God. Therefore, there is no God.

Certainly one can agree that there is no anthropomorphic God of the sort that Hume envisaged, no kind, old man sitting in a back room, working out people’s destinies and allotting rewards and punishments. There is no God with a human scale of values; no God made in the likeness of humankind. To postulate such a God would mean that the object of human life is mundane happiness, and God’s job is to ensure it. There are people who get through life with no great suffering-no actual hunger, no lack of clothing or shelter, reasonable security, fairly friendly relations with those around them, few long or painful illnesses, and finally, death while sleeping. Is that the perfect life? If God could arrange for everyone to get by as easily as that, would He have done his job? Would He be accepted by such critics? Then why did Christ tell some of his followers to give up their possessions and become mendicants? Why did he draw people to a life in which, he warned them, they would be persecuted and even killed? Obviously, he had a totally different conception of values.

The question of suffering is bound up with the question of values, and this is dependent on the meaning or purpose of life. Do those who complain of suffering recognize any meaning or purpose at all? If their aim is not merely to get by without too much hardship, what is it? To serve others? That would mean to help others get by without too much hardship, so that ultimately it comes to the same thing. Is there anything for which it is ultimately worthwhile to face suffering? If not, life would indeed be dismal.
.
.
.
.
Quest and Egoism

Sometimes our first perception of truth has a transforming effect, bringing out all that is beautiful within us, so that our friends find us to be a new and delightful person. But that is only temporary. In the aftermath of awakening, our vast tendencies may surface. Those who marveled at our improvement may begin to find us worse than before and question whether it would not have been better had we never put our hand to the plough. At this point, the armies of our noble and regressive tendencies must enter into battle, which in fact may last a lifetime.

Even with this understanding, how do we explain the many cases of aspirants who were outright egoists before they took to the path and seem to remain so afterwards? Moreover, what of the good, kind-hearted people who do not take any path? When Christ was asked why he associated with riff-raff, he answered the sick need a doctor, not the healthy. There may have been some sarcasm in this statement, since one can hardly imagine that those who challenged Christ were spiritually healthy. Nevertheless, those who recognize that they are spiritually sick often seek treatment. That is why it is so often eccentrics and outsiders that become aspirants.

An American woman once asked Bhagavan why we should seek Realization, and he answered, “Who asks you to if you are satisfied with life as it is?” But he went on to explain that people often become dissatisfied with life and they turn to God for guidance. This insight explains why the good, comfortable, kind-hearted people seldom become seekers. They lack the spur of initial discontent to start them off. Christ said that those who seek shall find, but before one even knows that there is anything to seek, one may have to reject the sham satisfaction provided by everyday life. Tragic events may turn a nonseeker into a seeker, yet the call beckons the prosperous no less than the indigent, the successful as well as the failures. The call may stem from boredom, as well as tragedy.

There is also another, more psychological explanation why many egoists take the path (and it is only a matter of degree, because we are all egoists, more or less, until the ego is extinguished). Although committed to self-destruction, the ego has grand expectations of achievement. Some mystery religions have treated initiates like a king or a god for a year, only to be sacrificed at the year’s end. This process symbolizes ego-death, except that on the spiritual path, we do not have a fixed term for our self-sacrifice, and we can postpone it indefinitely. Even if the ego chooses not to make the hazardous choice of self denial, everyday life will confront it with the ultimate extinction of death.

The quest goes in alternate waves of expansion and contraction, symbolized by Jupiter and Saturn. Our task in this process remains quite simple-what we have to do is to keep the mind still, take cognizance of outer happenings, concentrate on the mere fact of Being, and remain poised and alert for promptings from within. It is as simple as that. Although it is simple, few people find it easy. While shaving or stirring the porridge, we are tempted to let the mind ramble on incessantly over “What I will say to George in the office?” and so on. These ramblings have two features in common. First, they center around a character called “I” who measures all events in terms of good and evil, advantage and disadvantage; sages declare this “I” to be fictitious. Second, these mental rumblings add nothing to the success of that presumptive character, but merely mull over what has already been decided or will have to be decided in due course. They have the disastrous effect of deafening the mind to the still, small voice of the Self and preventing spiritual intuition or awareness of Self from flowing. In this way the presumptive “I,” like an evil ghost, seems to usurp clear awareness of the Self.

While the mind of the student is filled with rambling thought, the mind of the realized person is dead [to identification with thought]. Though this statement appears paradoxical, the mind of the Sage is quite alive for receiving impressions. Inwardly, it receives awareness and intuitions of the Self, while outwardly it cognizes things and events. In both cases, the mind does not usurp the role of creator, projecting an imaginary world for an illusory being. Still, receptive, able to reflect the light of the Self, the mind also functions more efficiently when set free from its habitual agitated state.

Most people find it rather difficult to end the mind’s rumbling and to experience pure awareness of Being. Thus, the paths laid down by different religions offer them support. Asking oneself “Who am I?,” being mindful of one’s actions, watching the breath, repeating a mantra, concentrating on a scriptural text, or puzzling over an insoluble problem-all these are methods to control and still the mind.
.
.
.
.
This and That

Why should a quest be necessary? Why should a person not grow naturally into their true state, like a horse or an oak tree? Why should human beings alone, of all creatures, be tempted to misuse their faculties and have to curb their desires to grow to their true breadth and stature? To answer this question, we must understand what differentiates human beings from other creatures. Some researchers have attributed the difference simply to the greater intelligence and ability that comes from our more developed brain. This is patently untrue. Many creatures have greater ability than we do in one ability or another. A hawk has keener sight, a migratory bird has a better memory for places and directions, a dog has a stronger sense of smell, and a bat has a wider range of hearing. What really distinguishes human beings from other creatures is self-consciousness. Not only are we human beings, but we know consciously that we are. We may see this faculty with greater intelligence, but not in the commonly understood sense of outwardly turned intelligence. Being self-conscious implies the deliberate use of our faculties and the power of deciding how and whether to use them. And this power is also a necessity. Having the power to direct our faculties imposes on us the necessity of doing so, since even refusal to do so would be our choice or direction, and not spontaneous as with other creatures.

Theologians express the dilemma of human consciousness in the belief that God gave human beings free will. With it comes the choice of whether to obey or disobey God, and thus to work out our own weal or woe. Intellectuals often scoff at such doctrines, which are only picturesque expressions of fundamental truths. We simply cannot use our faculties as naturally as a bird or fox can, because we lack a natural human action, while there is a natural bird-action or fox-action. Humans, of course, have certain natural instincts, just as a bird or fox has (i.e., the instincts to eat, procreate and preserve life), but humans mayor may not choose to obey them in any specific situation related to the complexities of life. Our selfconsciousexistence forces us to choose how to use our faculties. Even when we attempt to use them in what is considered the natural way we are making a choice, and we could surely find someone to contest it. We call this choice free will, which is, therefore, not only a prerogative but an obligation for us.
.
.
.
.
Before we are drawn to the quest, we are directly conscious of only one being, which could therefore be called “this” -this which wants coffee for breakfast, this which has a toothache, this which decides to call on so-and-so or read such-and-such a book. We know other people, things, and events only indirectly, through our senses (including our reason, which Vedanta calls the “inner sense”). However, a time may come when we apprehend Beingof another kind: potent, unconfined, awe-inspiring, which we may think of as “That.” Hereafter, the dominant theme of life is the relationship between “this” and “That,” between the individual who experiences, classifies, and decides and the dimly perceived Reality. Our mental training decides whether we regard “That” as other than “this” or as the hidden Self of it. In any case, theoretical conclusions help us very little. What opens before one is a dynamic venture, the attempt to subordinate “this” to “That.” Ramana Maharshi said:

Under whatever name and form one may worship the Absolute Reality, it is only a means for realizing it without name and form. That alone is true Realization, wherein one knows oneself in relation to that Reality, attains peace and realizes one’s identity with It.
-Forty Verses on Reality (v. 5)

The attempt to do this is the quest. Becoming convinced of the identity of “this” with “That” means realizing it. In fact, intellectual understanding arrives only as the preliminary position from which to set out on the quest of Realization. “This” feels not only the power, but also the grace and pervading beauty of “That,” and is strongly attracted to it. Whether we call “That” God or Self, this is shaken by powerful waves of love and devotion toward it. The attraction is so powerful that “this” feels itself being drawn in to be devoured and merged in “That.” It also senses that absorption will produce what is called “the peace that passeth all understanding.” At the same time, “this” struggles against being absorbed, clinging tenaciously to the surface life which Christ exhorted it to give up. It still wants its own separate individual existence, along with its own decisions and enjoyments. Therefore, it may feel waves of resentment or actual hostility to “That.”

I sought to devour thee; come now and devour me; then there will be peace, Arunachala!
-The Marital Garland of Letters (v. 28), by Sri Ramana Maharshi

That is why (except in the rarest of cases) the quest is not a single, simple event. Normally, “this” clings to its separate, individual life with one hand, while reaching out for the vast, universal life with the other. Moreover, the two cannot co-exist. “This” must surrender utterly to “That” and consent to be devoured before it can merge in the peace of supreme Identity. And it fights against it persistently and cunningly, constantly changing its ground, weapons, and tactics. When “this” is dislodged from one fortress, it slips around the rear of the attacker and sets up another.

Therefore, the uneven course that the quest takes is never a gradual, smooth ascent. It always goes in alternate waves of grace and deprivation, expansion and contraction. A phase when life is a lilt of beauty is followed by one of harsh aridity, when all that was achieved seems lost, and all grace withdrawn. This alternation happens because when “this” turns in love and humility to “That,” it draws upon itself the grace, which is uninterruptedly radiating from “That,” like light from the sun; “this” then steals the grace for its own use or aggrandizement. Whether in thought or deed, it grows proud, considers the grace its own, and thus interposes its own dark shadow before the luminosity of “That,” causing an eclipse and shutting off the flow of grace. Again and again it repeats this pattern, learning only gradually and by repeated bitter experience. Only when, in final desperation, it brings itself to complete surrender, does lasting peace appear. Then “That” becomes “This.” There is no other.

Who is Who

We ask, “Who am I?” but is there an “I”? Initially, we presume that there is. Then, we ask who or what it is. There just IS-not I, he, it, or anything, just IS.

We try to divide up this simple IS by pronouns-I, he, you and by “this” and “that,” but is it really divisible? I feel Being and use the word “I” for it, but that does not mean that there is any separateness about it. You also feel Being and use the same word “I” for it of course, because it is the same being.

Outwardly, Being takes form as a world of things and events. It cognizes this world by means of “my” faculties. In fact, everyone has this sense of “me” and “my.” Being has three aspects. First, there just Is. Second, there is the manifest world. Third (or perhaps this should be put second), there is the focal point, the cluster of faculties called “me,” through which the manifest world is cognized. In all cases, pure Being or Is-ness remains the same, whether the manifest world and the “me” are there or not.

People often remark, “I am an infinitesimal, evanescent fragment in this vast universe.” True, but it is no less true that this vast universe is an infinitesimal, evanescent appearance within me. What-is remains the same, whether manifested in the universe or not. The pure sense of Being that I feel just is; it is the same as what-is. Saying that there is no “I” is the same as saying that there is nothing else.

To say that there is a subjective “me” and an objective “me” would open the door to misunderstanding, because all technical terms do that. However, at the same time it might point the way to understanding. Technical terms do that, too; that is why we find it so hard to abandon them. We could see the subjective “me” as the focal point between Being and the manifest world, and the objective “me” as that part of the manifest world which expresses itself on a par with you, Susan, James, and John. When, true to its nature, the subjective me sees every objective me equally; that is to say, it loves its neighbor as itself. It is attracted exclusively and completely back toward Being. That is to say, it loves God with all its heart and mind and strength.

In fact, fallen humanity is not true to its nature. People need authentic meditation experience before they even begin to feel impersonal “I” -ness, the unity of Being. Even when they do, they often continue feeling the restricted individual “I” sense. Every time I feel a thrill of pleasure at being praised or annoyance at being criticized; if I take the corner seat in a train and leave my companion a less comfortable place; when I take a second cup of tea and there is not enough to go round; or imagine myself in some role or dread some eventuality, I am proclaiming the individual “me” in action. And actions speak louder than words. What good is it to say that there is no ego, yet behave as though there were? Obversely, living on the assumption that there is an ego prevents one from realizing that there is not, and from realizing our true nature.

Many great Teachers, including Ramana Maharshi, have said that we are not bound, so there can be no Liberation. Yet, paradoxically, they have also urged us to seek Liberation. We must have a clear understanding of the words we use to avoid being tangled up in them. What are we liberated from? From the ego, our belief in an ego, or the illusion of an ego? If there is no ego then, of course, there can be no bondage to it and no need for Liberation from it. But so long as I live as though there were an ego, and take offense at an insult, there is an ego for me, and I am bound by it or by the service I render to it.

While my true Self is not bound, bondage to the (real or illusory) ego obscures the true Self. Realization of the Self is the same as Liberation from the ego.

What does it matter if I believe in a separate, individual self, an ego? Why do spiritual teachers speak of it as a sort of crime? Because it is. It is “original sin.” All technical terms, such as Self, ego, sin, God, or mind mislead us. These terms, which become personified like characters on a stage, need to be reexamined from time to time. Being (what-is) uses the mental faculty to report and circulate perceptions from the manifest world as submitted by my other faculties. However, very early in life this mental faculty begins to find some of the reports made to it pleasant and others disturbing. In this way, the mental faculty builds itself up into a fictitious person who demands the pleasant experiences and rejects (or tries to reject) the unpleasant ones. For this purpose, it uses and disposes of the other faculties. We call this fictitious person “mind” or “ego.” They are the same.
.
.
.
.
Concentration and Detachment

What we need is simply to take things as they come, reacting in the way we feel to be right, interfering as little as possible. Then things will happen correctly of their own accord, and grace will flow unimpeded. We do not have to induce divine grace to flow, only to refrain from obstructing it.

Two kinds of obstruction prevent grace from flowing and make the path long and arduous: distraction and attachment. Therefore, we have to cultivate their opposites: concentration and detachment.

Let us first consider concentration. The untrained mind seldom can concentrate steadily on a particular thought at all for any length of time. It flits about restlessly from thought to thought. The same phenomenon occurs in conversation. For instance, at a social gathering people seldom talk things through to a conclusion or discuss any subject seriously, but instead butterfly talk, flitting from one topic to another. Let the person with an untrained mind see how long the mind can be held to anyone theme. Getting past thirty seconds would be a great achievement for such a person. How much training, then, do we need to hold the mind to pure awareness?

Some teachers prescribe exercises for concentration, but this approach is seldom more than a parlor game. When it does have any effect, it may do more harm than good unless the mind is simultaneously being purified. Egoism is more dangerous in a concentrated mind than in a distracted one.
.
.
.
.