Reply to Paul...

 

Dear Paul..

Here is my response to your request for comments on the book you are preparing. First, I
am in admiration of your writing excellence.  I thoroughly enjoyed what you have to say,

and can only offer my own responses to some of your observations of your life, which are

not suggestions but just another indication of how we all are different.

OS Chapter, "Original Sin" is your personal story, and  obviously seems quite real

and beyond question.  I think it will have high interest for many readers. Reminds me of

accounts of near death experiences and a subsequent desire to tell the world.  Seemingly 

forgotten sometimes is the fact that only by having the experience can one really appreciate 

the significance.  Others can only observe these testimonies as stories, adding interpretations 

of their own.  Recognizing stories as stories seems to be a bridge not often crossed. 

A bridge to No-where?  (As in religions?)

OS Chapter, "What's it All About," I found most engaging personally.  "All the world

is a stage," Shakespeare says, and we are all actors or characters.  It seems that this 

discovery is fundamental to the human race.  Until we realize ourselves as characters,

appearances, the separate individual will seem to carry the day..not realizing that this

solid belief is an illusion.  And this so-called recognition is not teachable.  It is Nothing

(No-thing) being a character named Paul.  It is a paradox. Not understandable by rational

means.  That seems to me to  relate to 3. What is this all about?  Your discussion of the

Gary Renard book expands on this theme, as does modern science, as you say, in supporting

a growing consensus of an illusory world. Science seems to be leading the way.  But again,

I would say that realizing this from a paradoxical perspective is paramount..apparently. 

If this perspective is appreciated only from a story/thought perspective, it certainly is 

important, but seemingly lacks the necessary staying power...

The "throw away world" is another thread of your discussion.  The fundamentalist idea that

some life after this one is all important, and so what happens here is not relevant, although

making our life as sinless as possible, is a prerequisite for later.  That is all separation

thinking, which has been a heavy in fundamentalist Christianity.  Should Christianity

graduate to a more holistic model, modeling Jesus' real teachings, some say that is the path 

away from the throw away world.  Perhaps even that is a bit naive.  Such a new look could

be translated into church doctrine, and public policy, without addressing the 

fundamental assumption of separation.  So, how do we process this assumption?  Likely, 

we don't, because we can't. Hopeless?  Perhaps so.  Hopelessness may be the key by 

highlighting the reality of not-knowing.  Which would also highlight our limited capacity 

to rationalize our way out. Which may bring about the revolution in perspective which

would recognize that we are already home!  We already are what we are looking for...which

is told as the cosmic joke.  OK, enough already!

The remaining part of this chapter seems familiar, scenarios with seemingly informed

possibilities.  From both science and spiritual writings, and a seeming convergence.  I would

just say that, for me, the use of language seems foremost in considering all of this.

Languages are based on the separation of subject/object, and knowing that, good writers

recognize that they are simply doing the best they can.  Perhaps what is not mentioned

often enough is the encountering of paradox at almost every turn.  The paradox seems to

put an end to the rational story, and cause the reader or writer to either search for another

path (which may be most common) or to dwell there and perhaps find a resonance with the 

not-knowing and mystery.  What may also end at that point is the notion of the individual

as a separate entity.  May be frightening!  No more "me?"  The separate entity (me, or

the ego if you like) may become desperate pulling one back from this precipice.  You

allude to this removal of the Me from being the doer in your examples of the Taos sculptor

and Philip Glass.  This orientation seems quite radical to some, but to others who have

resonated with the truth of it, it seems very ordinary.  

So, with reference to the three questions you pose at the beginning of this chapter, and 

considering how the questions are usually asked with the assumption of a reality based on

separation, there likely will never be satisfactory answers for anyone.  We apparently await

a shift in perception which shows the illusion of separation.  If and when that happens

the questions dissolve in the perspective called variously Oneness, No-thing, Awareness,

Consciousness, Wholeness, all of which are inadequate names.

OS Chapter, "Your Move," seems as a rant from time immemorial.  I feel that much of 

what I have said above relates here.  The key issue, for me, is the issue of separation.  

This issue is mythically storied in the Garden of Eden, in which the snake entices the

woman entices the man, and they are expelled to the East. The Prodigal Son expels 

himself from Home, and also goes out to the east of Eden.  Separation is generally not

questioned, and a search is undertaken, in a grand variety of forms, to restore the

wholeness of the home we left behind. This search, which is likely not even recognized 

as a search, seems synonymous with suffering.  And so, most people live lives of quiet 

desperation, as said Henry David Thoreau.  Separation is an illusion, but how can we

know?  Maybe the suffering is there to inform us we are already home.  Now there

is a paradox that makes no sense!  But it seems the crux of an unteachable solution,

for some.  It is probably most often called non duality, and the simplicity of it is found

in statements, such as No-thing being everything, or No-thing appearing as everything.

These statements, and others, point to the reality of oneness..the unity declaration

seems stark.  But intellectual processing is not resonance. Thus, the un-teachability.

And, the loss of the assumption of a separate individual can be frightening.  Susanne

Segal experienced a sudden recognition of her illusory separate self, and treated it

as a pathological condition for several years.  (Collision with the Infinite is the name

of her book).   I think it is an extreme example, but illustrative.  I find it interesting

that  young people these days are resonating with this message, which may be

an encouraging sign.  

So, I will end up by saying that all I have said in all of this rambling are responses 

(thoughts) triggered by various things you say in your writing. Thoughts are 

limited, so don't take anything seriously!

I will be first in line to buy your book, unless Robin elbows me out...😄

Charlie