Advaita Fellowship Webcast 4 February 2006
Wayne: What is your name?
Shaun.
Wayne: Hi, Shaun. Have we met before, Shaun?
No, not yet.
Wayne: So how is it that you find yourself here today, Shaun?
I was visiting my brother, and my cousin Colin was visiting from Ireland, and they told me to come along.
Wayne: I see. So, Colin, you are the instigator of this? (laughter)
I am, yes.
Wayne: I see. And have we met before?
No. Shaun’s other brother, Brendan, gave me your book a number of years ago. I read it, and was coming out this way…
Wayne: Which book was that?
Acceptance of What Is.
Wayne: I see. Whereabouts in Ireland do you live?
[inaudible] country, towards the west, in a small village.
Wayne: In the south?
Yes.
Wayne: So in your reading of Acceptance, what was it about the book that intrigued you sufficiently that you’ve come down here today?
…it was useful, I really liked it. I liked that it was, as far as I could see…I liked that it wasn’t necessarily answers that I’ve read or seen in other books, it was a different approach. I think in some ways it took a little bit of weight off my shoulders. There wasn't that drive for searching or questioning so much. It’s still there, just not to the same degree.
Wayne: Actually, lots of people report that reaction to encountering the teachings; that the seeking may remain, but the suffering attendant to feeling that I must, through my own egoic efforts, bring about whatever it is that I’m seeking – that belief, that drive, is incredibly onerous. And so I often watch people’s body language change, especially when they’re hearing the teaching for the first time, and it’s starting to penetrate for the first time…actually, they may have heard it fifty times, but as it penetrates you watch people’s shoulders drop, their breathing eases, there’s just a general relaxation. Often, in women, their hair comes down as there's just a general softening of, you know, "Aaaaah." (pause) So did your reading or the subsequent couple of years provide you with any questions that we can talk about today?
I was just saying on the way here that I have been thinking about questions for a long time, but nothing arises, and I was going, "Oh, you'll think of something to ask," and I couldn't. I couldn't think of anything that I really wanted to say, like "Wayne, if I asked you this, would it make a huge difference in my life if I heard your answer to this question?" I was just happy to come along this morning and just to be here. But if I do think of anything, can I let you know?
Wayne: Fair enough. And if you don't think of anything don't feel obligated to make something up. (laughter) (pause) I was in Dublin a couple of years ago, doing talks…and this was the low-water mark for my talks and roaming around the world…the organizer, it turns out, was concerned that too many people were going to show up at the facility, so he didn't advertise it, (laughter) and so nobody came! And so it was the organizer and his wife, and they roped his sister into coming, who had no interest in the subject per se, but just was kinda helping them out when on the second day nobody had shown up. Which was funny because in London, on the previous trip, a whole raft of people had come from Ireland to the talks in London, so it wasn't that there wasn't any interest, it was just that nobody knew about it. And one person showed up from London at the talks in Dublin, so go figure.
Do you ever not feel like talking sometimes? You have this schedule on the website, at this time, this day, but when you come down to doing the discussion, do you ever feel like not doing that?
Wayne: No, actually. No, I mean I come down and sit in the chair and sometimes the energy in the room is vibrant and exciting, and sometimes it's virtually nonexistent, and doing a couple of hundred talks over the course of a year you have every imaginable permutation of subject-matter, participants, energy in the room, and so it's always different, it’s always interesting in that regard.
(pause)
Wayne: And, for the most part, the people who come are kind and generous, open, loving, and so that's a nice place to be, with such people.
[inaudible] Everyone can be wonderful around you, but if you're miserable everything will be miserable.
Wayne: Absolutely correct. But even misery doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it is affected by the good feelings of others, and is often mitigated by the good feelings of others. That often will generate a shift in perspective. And, of course, the contrary is true too; you can come in in a great mood and everybody's in the toilet, and you're dragged down by that mood, so…
And the opposite: happy people around you can make you miserable, when you're a pessimist…
Wayne: Well, when you're miserable already I don't think they're making you miserable. They're just another thing to latch onto to reinforce your misery, but I don't think that if you're in a good mood and you encounter a bunch of people who are also in a good mood that makes you miserable.
Well, I mean as a seeker, if you see that the apparent tactics of other people, if you deem that to be some illusion, some illusory state…
Wayne: I'm sorry, what are you're talking about?
If you deem the supposed happiness of people around you to be an illusory state, that they're deceiving themselves, they think that they're happy, but deep down they're unhappy, then the apparent happiness of the people around you can depress you.
Wayne: Are you talking about your personal experience here?
Yeah, I'm sure a lot of it is.
Wayne: I see. So you think the happiness of people is illusory?
Well, that was the idea, yeah, if one perceives it that way.
Wayne: Is that how you perceive it? I mean, I'm not interested in abstract philosophical concepts – if that's you experience, then let's talk about your experience.
Yes, that's how I perceive it.
Wayne: That other people's happiness is illusory.
Apparent happiness. I would say apparent, because, I mean, it seems as if it's happiness.
Wayne: If it's apparent happiness, and it's not really happiness, then what is it?
It's the product of illusion, I guess. They think…
Wayne: What's real, then? If that's illusion, what's real?
Well, the illusion is that they think that they're the doer, they think that they are living a separate, individual existence, and that may be what makes them miserable.
Wayne: Yes, but what's real? That's what I'm trying to get at.
The illusion.
Wayne: The illusion is real?
Yeah.
Wayne: How is the illusion real?
The idea that they are a doer, that's real. I mean, the apparent happiness is also real, you see? It's just…it's coming from a false belief, so even though some reality has been created by this false belief…I mean, that's why it creates problems, because it came from a false belief, this apparent happiness.
Wayne: What kind of problems does happiness create?
What problems does happiness create?
Wayne: Yes. I mean most people don't come here because they've got too much happiness, and it's creating problems for them. I have very few people complain to me about that. And I talk to a lot of people!
Well, in the moment of happiness there aren't problems, but…um, I guess it's not the happiness that creates the problems; the apparent happiness is the effect of the core problem, the source problem, which creates…
Wayne: OK, let's go back: what's the core problem, then? Let's see if we can clarify this, because it's sort of amorphous.
That we believe we're a doer.
Wayne: And that's a problem? Why?
Um, because we don't know it to be true. We believe it to be true, and it might not be true that we are a doer. I mean, I guess we don't have to believe the flowers are on the table to see that they're there, but…
Wayne: We don't have to believe that the flowers are on the table to see that they're there?
It isn't a required belief.
Wayne: Right.
But, to feel that you are a doer, or an ego, or an agent with will, requires some belief, a concept.
Wayne: No, it doesn't. People without such a concept have that feeling all the time. And that's why Ramesh came up with this wonderful notion of this perception, this false perception of authorship, as being the "divine hypnosis" - that when the hypnotic suggestion is in place, it is not something that the person has, or created, you see? It is the process through which the perception occurs.
The perception of what?
Wayne: The perception of whatever the hypnotic suggestion represents. So if your hypnotic suggestion is that "I am the author of my actions," then, when you look at an action, what you see is that "I authored it."
Yeah.
Wayne: It's not a belief, it's as plain as day, it's what you see, it's totally apparent when you look at it! It has nothing to do with any conceptual, logical, intellectual process at all. It is simply your perception, a direct perception, in the moment.
But does the perception have a correlate in reality? I mean, is there a doer? We believe there to be a doer - the divine hypnosis - but that's just a symbol, isn't it? If we feel like a doer, that's just a conceptual symbol, but it points to absolutely nothing.
Wayne: It points back to something, but the question is, what does it actually point back to?
Yeah.
Wayne: So, even the illusion will point back to the source.
Does it point to something?
Wayne: Everything is an emanation or an expression of the source, so we can say everything, ultimately, points back to the source. There's nowhere else for it to point! (laughter)
But to me, it seems we are on two different levels. When you talk about the source I don't really understand what the source is.
Wayne: Well that's a start. (laughter)
But it seems like it's pretty all-encompassing.
Wayne: Yes.
And even that word doesn't sufficiently describe it because it's bigger than it can be, whereas this idea that we are a doer is on a more relative, dualistic level.
Wayne: Yes, it is. That's absolutely true.
> So, on the relative, dualistic level can't a symbol not point to anything? Intellectually I understand that at the ultimate level everything points back to the source, like you just said, but on the relative level it feels like our concept of the doer doesn't point to any actual doer, we don't know that it points to the actual doer.
Wayne: No, I said that it can point at the actual doer. Wherever you start can be a pointer to the source, you see? This teaching takes you from where you are, whether you make a judgment of it that it's illusory, that it's real, it doesn't matter – from that point we can begin this process of examination, of investigation, of looking at what's true and what's not. And that's all this teaching is.
Looking at which perceptions are true or not?
Wayne: That's right. What is actually going on? That's what we're ultimately questioning. And so any of these assumptions, and any of the conclusions that one draws along the way, again needs to be examined in the same light. And all that examination is, is a movement towards the source, towards a deeper, more profound understanding that is ultimately not dualistic, that is not contingent, that is not relative.
But I don't understand how can we, living in a dualistic world, perceiving in a dualistic manner, get in touch with something that's Advaita?
Wayne: And that, Victor, is the mystery of the mystic, of the mystical, you see, because you are going beyond the relative, and you're saying, "How can I go beyond the relative?" and any mystic worth his salt will tell you, you can't. You absolutely cannot go beyond the relative, and yet the mystic will in the same breath say, "I have gone beyond the relative." (laughter)
Wouldn't you say that we're all beyond the relative?
Wayne: That depends on the mystic! (laughter) Because they're all pointers, you see? All these relative statements are imperfect representations of that which is not representationable, you see, because you can only represent something that exists, that is an object, right? So, what we're pointing at is not an object, it's not a thing.
I asked you about this last time, but I did not get it, I still don't get it, about how can we perceive it?
Wayne: You can't perceive it!
Then how can we know about it? That's what don't see? How can you even talk about it if it can't be perceived or felt or understood or looked at or…?
Wayne: It's pretty stupid, isn't it? (laughter) It's really ridiculous, and yet these teachings are talking about that which cannot be known, that which cannot be "spoken of." You've read the Tao Te Ching, by Lao Tzu - I mean we've been at this for thousands of years - Lao Tzu, thousands of years ago, started the Tao Te Ching with the lines,
The Tao than can be named is not the true Tao.
The first words out of his mouth: The Tao that can be named is not the true Tao!
A good disclaimer!
Wayne: But he didn't stop there, you see? He did not stop there, because the expression of the teaching is drawn forth by the people who come. True mystics do not go out into the marketplace to sell their ideas, because their ideas are worthless. They know their ideas are worthless. As soon as they name it, that's not it. It's not that they're purveying truths, that's the currency of the priests and the rabbis and the scholars, they've got the truths. So they go out and set up churches and universities and temples to purvey these truths, but traditionally the mystic has never had such a structure because he has nothing to sell! So you're absolutely right in concluding that all of these utterances are silly, ridiculous, whatever, and yet here we are. (pause) And insight does happen, and apperception does happen. "Apperception" is a term that I think Kant came up with, and it was later used by Wei Wu Wei quite a bit to describe this "knowing without a knower," "experience without an experiencer" - what a crock! How the hell can you have experience without an experiencer? You can't, it makes no sense, it's ridiculous. It's illogical and it's stupid, and yet there it is, you see, as a pointer to something that exists just beyond the reach of the known.
Wayne: (reading) Ryan asks, "Some teachings talk about enlightenment as follows: they say that it is a state that has no place for things like sex, lethargy, etc. They also say that the mind is always under control for a sage. Other teachings say the exact opposite. How can the same state have different descriptions?" Must not be the same state. (pause) I had an interesting e-mail discussion briefly with a fellow who is an "Advaita" teacher of a Lucknow satsang group, and he invited me to debate. (laughter) It was absolutely staggering! (laughter) I told him that if I felt the urge to debate come up I would let him know. The notion of debating Advaita is beyond ludicrous, absolutely beyond ludicrous, and it stems from a belief in one's own bullshit; that what one is saying has intrinsic value, and that you can measure this intrinsic value by putting it up against somebody else's [views]. And then that you can determine, by this matching, which one has more quality. I just found the whole concept to be so absurd, because what you're matching is bullshit. Which bullshit is more bullshit, or which is less bullshit, or…I mean, it's bullshit! To measure the qualities of the bullshit, what possible value is there in comparing degrees of bullshit? Absolutely staggering.
Wayne: (reading) Sally asks who is it I said came up with "apperception"? I believe it was Immanuel Kant, but I'm not absolutely certain of that.
I have a question. I've come to a contradiction in the Advaita teaching, in that it says there is no doer. This seems contradictory to the, let's say, scientific tenet that it's impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything. I can prove something exists, you know, but there is actually no way you can say that something doesn't exist. So how can Advaita teachers say that the doer or the ego or the soul doesn't exist?
Wayne: You'll have to ask an Advaita teacher who says that. To me…
You say there is no doer.
Wayne: I do not say there is no doer. I absolutely do not say that. What I propose is that you investigate. You see, the point at which you say, "there is a doer," "there is no doer," "there is no free will," "there is free will" – the whole thing is dead, it's absolutely dead. So, then you take that factoid that there is no doer or there is a doer and you swallow it, and now you have that factoid in you, but so what? The process is dead. And what this teaching is about, and the reason I feel that it is a live teaching, is because it is without tenets, it is without doctrine, and it is without all the philosophical debate that saps the life out of true teaching. The true teaching points you to look for yourself, to find the truth, to have an insight that is deep and profound, you see? Because that's the only thing that has any true value in a mystical sense. And this teaching is not philosophy.
It's a reality?
Wayne: It's simply a collection of pointers. That's all it is. A toolkit, the Advaita toolkit.
So, in no final liberated state can one say that there is or isn't a doer? Or is that an irrelevant question in light of what you've just told me?
Wayne: It is irrelevant. This goes back to the question of the "enlightened state," as described by different philosophies; that's really what we're talking about. This philosophy, this school, this doctrine, this "teaching" describes enlightenment this way; this one describes it exactly the opposite; which one is true? And what I'm saying is that neither of them is true. Enlightenment is not something to be described. There is no enlightened state, there is no enlightened behavior that you can point to and say, "Aha, he is exhibiting enlightened behavior, he must be enlightened!" Now, the fantasy of the seeker is that "When I become enlightened I'm going to then exhibit all of these qualities that I consider to be good." And, of course, that varies from community to community, as to what those qualities are, because the values of the community are different.
Wayne, you said recently - and I've heard you say it before - you described the relationship between the disciple and the guru as "the ultimate love affair." I wonder if you could explain that a little bit? Certainly, my experience is that it's different than my other love affairs, so what does that mean?
Wayne: What does it mean? It means exactly what it says, it's the ultimate love affair. Everyone's love affairs look different.
Wayne: (reading) [name inaudible] says, "So there is no way to know who is enlightened and who isn't, and it is more about following where the resonance is?" Maybe it's about following where the resonance is, but really it is more about what happens, and people have fantastically productive relationships with teachers who are not enlightened. And they also have some terrible ones with teachers who are. And there may be tremendous resonance with a teacher who is not enlightened. And there may be no resonance with one who is.
What is resonance?
Wayne: I describe resonance as that quality between the disciple and the guru in which there is an experience of the sadguru, of the totality of consciousness, unity, oneness, for the disciple.
So is it about how the guru feels when the disciple is with him?
Wayne: No. OK, if you start with two objects, you have what we call the disciple-object, which is always human, in this model. Then you have another object, what we call the guru-object, with a small "g"; it's an object, it's something, often human, but need not be. And when there's resonance between these two objects, this quality of connection that I call resonance, then the resonance itself is the conduit through which an experience of the Guru, with a capital "G", of presence, unity, oneness, whatever you want to call it, is made experiential for the disciple. So, the disciple experiences, in his connection with the guru-object, the Guru. So it feels like that object is the Guru, with a capital "G" - the same object, that's what we need to always remember: what is being experienced is transcendent, ultimately, of both the disciple and the guru-object. Having said all that, what we're describing is like the skeleton of a beautiful woman. OK, we now know what the skeleton is, but it doesn't tell us how she feels, of what the beauty is, what it is that moves one. It's not the skeleton, you see? There's another quality involved, and so, in the guru-disciple relationship there is that human quality of the disciple which is affected by the experience, and so it generates feelings of love, and that feeling of love manifests differently from different disciples. How disciples experience this love is vastly, vastly different.
Do you feel a responsibility for teaching?
Wayne: No, I wouldn't put it in that context, of feeling a responsibility to the world or to spread the truth, because I'm not, you see? So, what I'm clear on is that I, as Wayne, am an instrument through which this is happening now, and has for the last seven or eight years. Prior to that I was an instrument through which different kinds of activities were happening.
Why did the source manifest itself as me?
Wayne: Whenever you ask a "why" question related to the action of the source, of totality, you are, by the very nature of the question, objectifying the source – which is inevitable, it is what the mind does. But the source is not a thing with a rationale, you see? Rationales are human creations, adult human creations, in fact. Little children don't have them, and animals don’t have them. If you say to a hummingbird "Why did you build that nest? Why don’t you build it this way, why don't you build it there?" the question has no meaning in that context. And so as long as we perceive the source as an entity of some kind, however amorphous, with adult, human qualities, then we ascribe intentionality and objectivity to it, and we say "It did it for this reason," "It did it in order to get that." But for our purposes here we have to expand the definition of the source far beyond such a limited, objective definition. And once as that is expanded, then questions such as "why?" have no single answer, they have multiple answers, and those are the answers that religions give. And so you have a Jewish answer, a Christian answer, a Muslim answer, and a Taoist answer and a Buddhist answer and an animist answer of why the manifestation came into being in the first place, why it looks the way it does, why there's evil – all of those questions about why "God" does what "God" does are what religions are all about.
Are you saying that it's nonsensical to ask those kinds of questions?
Wayne: No, what I'm saying is when you expand your understanding the question itself dissolves, you see? As the understanding is more focused and more limited in a totally relative notion of a source or God as being an object, creating this, then those questions have relevance and meaning and there are thousands of answers. There's no shortage of answers to the question! So pick one you like.
Tell me what you think of my answer: consciousness, pure consciousness, manifested itself as me so that it could experience itself in this particular manifestation.
Wayne: Hm-hm, yeah, that's the New Age answer. That's the religion of the modern spirituality which says exactly that: the reason source manifested was to experience itself. Actually, it borrowed that from Hinduism which said that the manifestations of lila are a dance, that it's God dancing. I have no objection to such answers, I'm not going to debate anybody on those answers. And if that is a satisfactory answer for you then by all means enjoy it! But what we're doing here is we're looking beyond the notion of consciousness or the source as a thing, as a thing that has human characteristics, desires, wanting something, see?
Nothing can affect it or cause it in any way?
Wayne: The universe is uncaused. There is the beautiful quote by Ramesh. He said, "The universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each - meaning each jewel - is only the reflection of all the others, in a fantastic, interrelated harmony, without end." Isn't that nice?
That's beautiful.
Wayne: It's very beautiful.
Wayne: (reading) Kay asks, "Why do so many people within this world seem to operate from a perspective of lack?" It is curious, and it seems to be a very human quality, something to do with the way humans are constructed, that, almost universally, what occupies our attention most strongly is negative. And so what you don't have looms much larger than what you do have. You walk into a room with a hundred people in it who like you, but there's one person in the room who doesn't. Where does your attention go? What occupies your attention when you get ninety-nine compliments and one insult? Now, why we're constructed that way (shrugs) I don't know. I heard an interesting theory about how…you know what, I'm not even going to go into it, it's going to take up too much time.
Do you think everyone is constructed that way, or just those who are more
materially advanced? When you go to some places in South
America there are tribes that couldn't care less if there was
food on the table, so they're not constantly seeking something because it's
all right there. So is it not that technologically advanced societies feel
that something is lacking because they come from the point of view of the
negative? In
Wayne: That's true, and yet the Hawaiians are among the most murderous people on the planet. They were brutal, brutal to one another, they were horrible, incredibly violent and aggressive. So, what does that tell you? They were fighting for control, for power, for land, and domination of one tribe over another. I studied cultural anthropology at university, just because it interested me, and what I was able to discern from my learning on the subject of "primitive' peoples is that they exhibit many of what we call basic human characteristics, and, isolating what those basic human characteristics are, seemed to have to do with the needs of the organism, providing for oneself. And then who oneself is gradually extends, you see? So that "myself" extends to "my children," to "my wife," to "my parents," to "my clan," to "my tribe," and so on, but it's still about "me." And that seems to be the basic building block of every human civilization; "me" extended out socially. And, inevitably, where there are the concerns of the individual, they're going to come in conflict at some point with other individuals' needs, and with the needs of the society. So it's that tension which provides some really interesting dynamics in life, and in the dramas of life. So, in primitive societies you have clubs and weapons, in more advanced societies you have [….] who can settle these things. But the tensions are there in every society.
Can you take anything that a particular culture values, and if you take that away, you get the same effect of a sense of lack? I mean, I was trying to think of a general theory of…
Wayne: But "lack" is simply the other side of the coin of "having;" You "have" and then you "don’t have." And the question is what it is about humans, where the emphasis in their perspective seems to be more strongly on the negative.
Wayne: That's what occupies people's attentions. When you observe people, and you talk to them, that just seems to be the way that people function, you see? Now, there are degrees of that, of course, but I don’t personally know of anyone for whom there is a totally balanced, fifty-fifty kind of response to the positive and the negative, that they are affected equally by the positive and the negative.
Should we examine that?
Wayne: How about it?
Is it of any use?
Wayne: I don’t know, but it's worth looking and seeing if it's true, if it's part of what is. That, to me, is where the investigation is. Then we can leave why it's true, as far as I'm concerned, to other branches of learning, where we have the explanations for why what is, is the way it is, but…
That's very scientific.
Wayne: We'll call it scientific, but what we looking at here is to see if we can connect to what is, and then, in the acceptance of what is, there is peace.
So the "why" isn't particularly relevant to being at peace.
Wayne: That is correct.
It is the acceptance of reality.
Wayne: That's right. The "why" is the story that we tell about what is. It may be a scientific story, based on scientific principles, it may be an emotional or a personal story, meaning how it affects me, how it relates to me, but all of those are overlays on what is.
Then why do we ask "Why"? Why is it such an important question for us?
Wayne: Again, if that interests you – why we ask why – have a look. But we do ask why. That is certainly part of what is, it's part of our nature, part of what's happening.
Wayne: (reading) Alexander asks, "Are the concepts of space and time fundamental for the manifestation to happen or appear?" This one, the nature of this manifestation, is that space and time are intrinsic to it. (pause, reading) Alexander goes on to say, "Then nothing in here can be the truth either?" That's right, that's what I've been saying! These are not truths, they're pointers.
But could you say the truth is different from the pointer? I mean, truth being all-encompassing, includes the pointer.
Wayne: Yes.
So isn't that a contradiction?
Wayne: We have lots of those, don't we? (laughter) So it all depends on how you look at it, doesn't it, Victor?
I come from a Catholic, a Christian, background in which the concepts of soul and an afterlife are what happens. What do you think happens to the concept of the soul, as we believe it exists?
Wayne: Well, this is where we have to get into very shaky territory because what is the soul, you see? And how does it relate to you? These are the questions we need to examine before answering the questions about the afterlife and all of that, these basic questions as to what are you, and, then, how this "you" relates to the soul, whatever that is, you see? And that's a pretty big subject. They are two very large subjects, actually. You're much better off starting with you because that's something that you can really deal with. The soul is a concept to describe something, but there's no physical evidence of the soul that we can relate to. We can only take doctrinal descriptions and explanations of the soul, and, generally, you're taking them from people whose business it is to manage them. (laughter) So you've got to consider the source, too. That's why I strongly point you to do your looking, to do your investigation, in an area where you can look, and that is into yourself and what you are, fundamentally.
You said "enlightened" and "unenlightened," and one of the statements I've heard from different people who are enlightened, is that they now say, "Oh, I saw that I was always enlightened." I've never heard you talk about being enlightened or not enlightened, at least I don’t remember it until today when you mentioned it a few times. I don't think that you've ever said, "I realized I was always enlightened," that all of a sudden there was a difference that didn't go away and hasn't changed and hasn't been modified. At least that's what I remember hearing from you. So did you consider yourself "always enlightened"?
Wayne: No, I've never said that.
OK.
Wayne > (reading) Dan asks, "Wayne, are you a vegetarian?" Well, I am sort of a vegetarian. (laughter) I only eat animals that eat vegetables. (laughter)