|
|
Nonduality Salon (/ \)
issue number two - October, 2000
Nonduality Salon Magazine
(X)
POWER OVER
THE WORLD
by
Gene Poole
It is the
seeing of something wrong, of something out of place, which
prompts certain actions.
Only in the 'world' of the world-dream (call it what you will, if
you can see it) is there the possibility to see something 'wrong'
or out of place.
If one gives attention to the details of the world-dream, there
are two possibilities:
* In one case, a person assumes that there is really something
wrong, and moves to fix it.
* In the other case, it is seen that the assumption that there is
something wrong, is occurring only in the aspect of the person
which is able to see the dream. In this case, we are seeing not
only the dream and what is apparently 'wrong', but we are also
looking at our own (hidden?) mechanism which is able to read and
interpret the information which is the world-dream itself.
The ability to see the dream, does not imply that the seer is
dreaming. It is possible to be awake and to see and contemplate
the intricate workings of the dream-world. It is possible to
understand what is of the dream and what is not of the dream.
We know or have heard or at least have suspected, that the
world-dream 'exists' as the only world, for a great many people.
This is to say, that it is a popular (in certain circles) to
proclaim or to hold to be true, that many people are unwittingly
taking a dream to be 'real'. And we assume this to be to their
own detriment, and by extension, to the detriment of everyone.
It is also 'true' that the one who is 0bserving the dream is
actually awake, but is making a fundamental error, in the act of
identifying oneself to be a character in the dream. It is this
identified character who is assuming that here is something
wrong, and is moving to fix it. It is this character in the dream
who stands to either profit or lose by acts taken or not taken.
It is at this point that we may ask fundamental questions, such
as:
* At what point does one take the dream to be real? What are the
'serious hooks' which draw one into the activity which is
apparently 'going on' and ongoing?
* Why do these 'serious hooks' attach one to the events of the
dream, as though it is real? Is it anything other than the
assumption of either profit or loss, as possibilities to be dealt
with?
* Why is it, that a person is unaware of the difference between
automatic and 'unconscious' (unwitting) participation in a body
of information (the world-dream) and Being as Self? Clearly, we
are all able to have either 'reality' (automatic dream OR
conscious awareness), or even both, at the same time.
* Why is it difficult to differentiate between the fundamental
act which is Nature of Being itself, and the acts which ramify
(secondarily, epi-phenomenally) from that basis? It is possible
to have both at once (everyone does), but is it possible to have
Being conscious primary, observing secondary (projected,
reactive) apparent events? If this is possible, is it ever spoken
of in the first-person?
* Is it 'ethical' to speak as though the events perceived in the
body of information which is the world-dream, are 'real'? This is
a major question to contemplate, and it is addressed
infrequently. Buddhism studies state that a Buddha speaks only of
what is real (Dharma), thus not validating as real what is only
information.
* If one is speaking to those who take the world-dream
information as their 'reality', is it wise or desirable to argue
points of contention which apply only within the logic-systems
which persistently arise within the dream-information? If one
does so argue, the possibility of greater attachment must be
taken into consideration. On the other hand, if one is speaking
to those who take the dream as reality, what can be said, that
will NOT stimulate a reaction of attachment?
* Is it possible to recognize that what is argued in the context
of the information of the world-dream, applies only to the dream
itself, and thus to those who take it as 'real'? Is it possible
to maintain a position of being 'In the world, but not of it'?
* What is it, to be of service to those who take the
dream-information as real? It is assumed that the best service is
to 'awaken' those others, but what means are ethical? There are
at least two approaches to this putative task of service: The
so-called 'direct' way, which is to essentially say "wake up
and stop suffering", which includes such (presumed to be)
shocking statements as "there is no I", "All of
what you see are projections of ego-activities", and etc.
Another way is simply to live and act as one who is able to see
in conscious awareness. This may include speaking or writing or
not.
* Given the predictable reactions of those who take the
information of the world-dream to be real, is it ethical to
effectively 'trap' those dream-dwellers in the faulty logic of
their own assumptions? This is a major question to contemplate.
Certain 'teachers' have exampled this 'way of awakening', and
have been both praised and condemned for their acts.
** The example of the professor or pundit who is able to defeat
'anyone' in argument, by resorting to higher or subtle logic, has
been carried over to the field of 'spiritual awareness', and thus
we would be led to assume that this argument of 'breaking the
hold of ignorance' is actually a profound service. Is it indeed a
service at all, or does it merely carry forward a method which
provokes attachment to systems of 'logic' and thus attachment to
dream-reality?
** The pundit or sage who is indeed able to defeat any
dream-logic, may be of service, by destroying attachment to
dream-logic, and thus show there there is no salvation in logic
or systems. To do this in a compassionate way seems to be what is
the answer to the question of ethics, but what we must remember
in this issue, is that there is no time-frame but the one imposed
by those in the dream. The effective and compassionate sage
abides Being in time-frames, but is able to understand the
urgency of the sufferer in the dream, and to gently invite the
sufferer to leave the context of suffering, by stepping away from
the dramas of the information of the world-dream.
* The question of ethics arises here and now, for this reason; it
is seen that the entire process of abiding, is to somehow come
into a neutral reaction (not no-reaction) to elements of
information which stimulate movement. Movement in this context is
stimulated by reaction to what is perceived (inwardly or
outwardly) to be 'desirable' or 'undesirable'. Movement then, is
either toward (desire) or away (aversion).
Given the above, if one is allowing the information of the
world-dream to choreograph spontaneous movement, one is
effectively in the dream. The question of ethics is a selfish
one, because it has to do with the 'how' of not being in the
dream. If one is in the dream, one is suffering (profit and loss,
the drama thereof). The end of suffering profit and loss, is to
abide the buffeting of the dream, by adopting a neutral reaction
to that buffeting.
The question of ethics is an unselfish one, in that one who is
able to example abiding, is of service.
One can literally 'back out of the dream', by simply disengaging
reaction. It is that simple. But to stay out of the dream, to
maintain conscious awareness, and to be able to observe the
world-dream in its glory and folly, and to understand the
information of the dream in conscious awareness, is the putative
goal. Our ethical considerations actually form guidelines which
if respected, maintain the distinction between dream and
conscious awareness. Violation of the ethics of this case, are
harmful only to oneself. It is up to each person to find the
dynamic balance of abiding; to see the dream, and to be
consciously aware, of being conscious awareness.
(X)