Nonduality

How is it possible, as an 'activist', to plot and execute the demolition of the world-dream?

What It Is:
The Question and the Answer

Gene Poole

Part One

Perhaps it is time to exit the closet, so to speak, and speaking for myself 'personally'. Perhaps it is time, to let the cat out of the bag, and to dig up the bone, and the long-buried dog as well.

Perhaps it is time, to unleash certain forces; perhaps it is time to detail just how it is, that these certain forces have become restrained, and also "how to" give these certain forces, free and unconstrained play in this human universe.

As you may suspect, it all began very long ago, but that is of minor import. The 'long ago' concept holds no meaning for one, who is not embedded in the time-frames of human (or geologic) history.

Indeed, it is this "assumed to be reality" historical timeframe, which is what I refer to as the 'world-dream'. This collective memory of 'history', is the foundation of all contemporary 'identity-structure' of any human. Humans feel secure and 'right' when they reference current events, to this historical timeframe-structure. Without this constant, self-refreshing database of 'history', contemporary identity-structure would be quite sparse, as sparse as that of any of the historical 'masters of consciousness', such as Ramana.

"Who am I" is designed to parse history from identity, leaving... nothing. History, occupying memory, is the 'dog in the manger'.

But this is a magnificent watchdog! Have you noticed, that 'everyone' wants to have a dog? And that dog 'ownership' is not only justified, but expected? The dog has become, the universal symbol of what it is, that occupies contemporary time and space.
Limited yes, which is the nature of the dog, perhaps a burden at times, but loveable and 'cute', and endlessly entertaining, or should I say, distracting?

As Da Free John has mentioned, social talk usually is about the dog. The dog symbolizes what occupies consciousness, as 'identity'. As long as this 'dog' is allowed to take up all space and time, its antics will cover over what is already here, going on anyway and eternally. The dog of identity is essentially disabled, however; it cannot exist apart from its 'host', and thus it can be seen clearly, as 'parasitic'. The 'manger' of consciousness, the host of this 'dog', would otherwise be hosting the opposite of 'dog', which is 'God'. But dog owners, are notorious for their proud fetish, and thus defend, never knowing 'God' but as an abstraction.

"Better the devil we know, than the devil we do not know". This is the feeling-mantra of fear, recited by those who reject 'God' in favor of 'dog', and it is validated on every screen of the world-dream. "God" is the 'devil we do not know', and are in mortal fear of meeting.

Those who favor history over the indefinable present-time, mount the idol on the alter, and call each-other to worship. The unknown itself, is placated and charmed into a favorable repetition of 'the best of times', or so the effort is bent. History is the only database available, from which to derive 'how things should be'. And for this 'idol/dog/identity' to have any potency, history must be affirmed above all else.

Recall, how according to history, Moses returned from his meeting with God, to find his people embroiled in idol-worship. The irony was not lost on Moses, according to the story; his message from 'G-d', if understood, would have eliminated the idol/dog-in-the-manger/identity. This historical message, if itself understood, would disassemble the historical database which is the world-dream, and in the same action, would also eliminate the 'dog', or identity, which is itself composed entirely of 'history'.

At his point, to avoid confusion, I will say that 'identity' is not to be understood as 'ego'. In my perspective, 'ego' is simply a natural mechanism which is assigned the task of maintaining identity; 'ego' can do many things, but as long as 'identity' is the prime requirement of those who dwell exclusively in the world-dream, the mechanism of 'ego' will be in service of maintenance of identity, even unto the failure of all other otherwise supported functions of the human.

This viewpoint may be confusing in itself, because it is 'against' most traditions. But consider, that it is the literal 'worship of history' which is the error; there is no error in 'ego' doing what it is told to do. My intention is to take the heat off of 'ego' and put it where it belongs, to deprive 'history' of its hypnotic fascination for the human. Nothing can be 'done about' ego, but everything can be done about the common human trance-state of idol-worship, which is what is, 'having identity'.

Part Two

The Trance of History, also called "The Black Iron Prison" by author Phillip K Dick, is a virtual realm only. This is to say, that history is only 'real' when it is being remembered. Otherwise, it does not exist.

History is for most humans, an unpleasant trance-state; it contains the 'reasons' for paranoia and dread, but also contains the 'reasons' for hope. The common human activity of the moment, it to pit the paranoia against the hope; the optimist stakes his bets on hope, the pessimist wagers in favor of the paranoid version. In this, we are able to glimpse a certain insight; the 'virtual realm' of history, is made real by hope, as well as by paranoia. Otherwise, with no effort to reference it, this 'database of history' would have no influence; in this eventuality, the dog leaves the manger.

I will leave it to you, to discover exactly what is the nature of the human addiction to history. If you are honest with yourself, you will find the answer to this seldom-asked question.

It has come to my attention, that the human can live well and profitably, with no identity, and thus no history, no paranoia, and no hope. The constant retelling of history, personal and collective, is the endocrine-wringing trance which conveys membership in human consensus-reality; let one socially-active person be free of this compulsion, and the world-dream will eventually evaporate.

How is it possible, as an 'activist', to plot and execute the demolition of the world-dream? This question should be asked, so I am asking. If you do not have an answer of your own, perhaps
you will enjoy my offering, given here at this time.

There are several principles which can be understood, for the purpose of abolishing _personal_ history. By this microcosmic process and example, one may understand how the world-dream may be made harmless:

Principle #1: We live at the end of history; 'these are the end-times'.

Explanation: Envision history as a fountain of water, and yourself as a ping-pong ball, constantly buoyed by the uprising of that powerful jet. Bounced and jounced, yet balanced carefully, always held aloft, this little ball demonstrates our common relationship with the world-dream. Supported thus, the rough ride is seen as preferable to the collapse of the geyser. But why?

We occupy 'this moment'; all history has passed, and is no more, except in memory. Is this correct to say? We now and always, live at 'the end of history'; it is only memory, which conveys history to this moment, and to the next moment, and so on.

By remembering principle #1, 'we live at the end of history', a wonderful apocalypse may dawn for the individual, and for every individual. This considering, is the work of the individual; any 'activism', is simply this 'realized individual' living socially, free of history.

We may also consider history to be a sequence of frames, like a very long and deep deck of cards, and you are facing the latest one right now. Looking at it, you understand its significance only by your own experience of having looked at each previous card as it appeared. But what you may not notice, is that you are actually NOT IN this sequence of frames; you are actually outside of any frame, looking at the latest frame, right now. If you can see this relationship, you succeed in removing yourself from history; you are the observer of memory, you are not the memory.

Here is another significant question: "Am I in my own memories?"

Identity is memory, only; identity is memory, (pre-) occupying consciousness, and (parasitically) displacing current real-time vision of 'what is'. If I am 'in' my own memory, it is not the 'I' of this moment, but the 'I' of a previous moment. If 'I' was a 'certain way' in the past, that 'past I' is now memory only, but it is possible to 'bring forward' the 'I of the past' to occupy this moment. It is this 'I of the past' which is the 'dog in the manger'.

Because memory is 'volatile' (changeable), the 'current 'I' structure' can reach into the sequence of historical frames, and re-order the past 'I' to a version which matches the current one; this is particularly troublesome, and is the basis for what is called in psychiatric practice, 'confabulation'. Confabulation literally means 'imagining an imagined reality to be real', and is seen as a symptom of serious brain-disorder. But how different, is the world-dream dweller, such as yourself, who constantly reconfigures memory to match current criteria of personality? Is not denial and re-making of 'self'/identity a constant activity? Is not the 'search for a better way', simply this very activity of re-arranging the pieces, into a more favorable version? Is this the true meaning of 'reformation'?

Part Three

Q: "Do I exist in memory?"

A: No.

You exist here and now only. If you doubt this, find yourself in memory, right now.

Look carefully and leave no stone unturned. Do you find yourself in memory?

Principle #2: "There is only self".

Explanation: There is only self; this encompasses 'everything', yet what is it?

It is everything, and everything is in constant motion; there is space between things, in fact, more space than things. Space is vast, and contains everything; the things (objects and events) are easy to see, but the space between, is invisible. No-one has ever 'seen' space.

To assume that you 'can see space' is natural, due to the conventions of speech and thought, but actually, we 'see' space by an act of calculation. We 'extrapolate' the existence of space, by the differences between objects, in space and in time.

Difference in space is easy to understand; one thing is here, another is there. But in time, what of that? One thing is now, and before, that thing was now, before; the 'now' of the past, exists only in memory; only in memory does the past exist, and only in imagination does exists the future.

So to say, 'elsewhere' has meaning, but to say 'elsewhen' is quite odd. Yet, we do this frequently, in reference to the past of future, do we not? To imagine 'a better world' is to exercise this peculiar talent of blending memory and imagination; to compare 'how it was' with 'how it is' and then with 'how it should be' or 'how it might be'.

But we must remember self; self is what is. Self is what 'has memory and imagination'; it has the ability to make adjustments to an imagined future, by relying on memory of the past.

Consider the archer, shooting at a moving target; it is this ability to extrapolate the factors of movement, space, and time, which allows accurate marksmanship. Similarly, one who desires to see self, must take into account all of the apparent variables, and then both include and discount each one. Self is 'everything', yet, it is nothing 'in particular', rather, it is 'all particulars', and the space (and time) in which all particles reside. In 'particular', self is the unchanging space (and time) in which all changing things reside.

As space, self is the consciousness in which all things appear, and in which all change seems to occur; self is the memory of past, the imagination of the future, and of course, it is the point of reference independent of all past and future; it is referenced to itself only, for there is nothing to which to compare self to. Yet, self 'sees' itself in the past and the future. Self spans all of time and space, encompasses all change, and is aware of itself as space, or 'emptiness'.

'Emptiness' is the arena of consciousness, in which all events occur; all events, known (as contrasted to) the past, or simply observed without any knowing whatsoever, in the present. It is also possible to observe the past (memory) without any knowing;
by this means, is past released, and thus also is identity allowed to dis-integrate and return to the dream-realm from which it arose 'in the beginning'.

What is 'remaining' in this operation of removing all meaning from memory, is 'simply' the observer. Now released from identification as a historical figure, self is now the space of awareness itself. All 'functions' of self, arise within this special 'emptiness'. To say emptiness is 'void' is to say the same thing as saying, 'nothing', which itself is the same error as referring to natural space as 'the out-of-doors'. What was it, before the invention of doors?

In the same regard, we need a way of describing self, without reference to what it is not. Self is said to be 'not this and not that', but this only dismisses particulars. Self is said to be 'everything', but this dismisses space, which certainly 'exists'. So for these reasons, is self referred to as 'primordial emptiness', from which all things arise. But to say 'from which all things arise, may imply that these things which arise, go somewhere. Not being the case, as there is nowhere for anything to arise 'to' or 'from'; rather, self is emptiness and all change occurring within that emptiness, yet the 'original' emptiness 'itself' does not change.

Memory is then, the most volatile and ephemeral of all 'things', yet, it is also the 'foundation of sand' upon which identity is built; it is no wonder, that it is the work of a lifetime, to establish and maintain identity. It is this constant work, which is the 'confabulation' of the human, who seeks to maintain not only individual identity, but also group-identity. Tribal affiliations require shared memory; tribal members share this burden of work, and in part, this work is the constant purging of what is not 'of the tribe'. This drive to homogenize the world into the memory-criteria of the tribe, is what is behind most human conflicts; the easy way to avoid conflict, is to remember that all memory is ephemeral, and that it is simply a story that self tells to itself; so that to hold, or reject, any version of memory (tradition) is to invite conflict.

Those willing attention to activism, remember; there is only self. Self is the arena of awareness in which all change occurs; only self is able to resist or motivate self; yet, it is all self-same.

The journey begins as emptiness in emptiness, arises as apparent change in emptiness, and returns as emptiness to emptiness.

Ask this: "What is doing, less the maintenance of identity?"

Gene Poole's Home Page