Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00250)

Hi. You have asked some very important questions in your message which I am
going to try to answer.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mauri" <mhart@idirect.ca>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 8:16 PM
Subject: Theos-World re Bill's "watching myself react"


> Bill wrote: <<I have learned much by watching myself
> react to Wry's writings. For that opportunity to see
> myself, I am thankful. Bill>>
>
> On the subject of reacting to whoever and whatever,
> one might wonder who or what is watching the watcher
> of the watcher of the watcher of the watcher of the
> watcher of the watcher of the watcher of the watcher of
> the watcher, and so on to logical infinity, of the
> "myself" that's reacting ...

Wry: If the watcher is the ordinary self watching the ordinary self, the
watcher is contaminated by preconclusions and will then select what to
watch, make evaluations about what is being watched, etc. In this case, the
watching is not impartial, and though perhaps of some limited value, will
NOT eventually lead to a state of being where "something" completely pure
and uncontaminated by various opinions connects to the discriminative
function (wisdom) in such a way that there is a liberation from reactions.
What is a reaction? It is a certain kind of hook up of the functions,
including emotion, and motor function etc. where certain glandular
secretions are at play, and things kind of happen by themselves,
mechanically, and I would say this whole process is triggered by certain
existing mechanical habits of relating to new material where it is not
received as new, but is associatively related to past events. At the root of
all human evil is mechanical patterns of responding to materal. This is why
there is hope. The solution is in each of us and it can be realized in
present time.There is a dynamic to a reaction that can only be understood by
each person as it is seen in himself in real time, not analyzed afterwards.
But ofcourse, if the watcher is looking to see a reaction or anything else,
again, the watcher is not purely impartial.

>If there isn't a logical
> ultimate reality to such watchers, other than as per
> whatever initial assumptions (as per one's
> exoteric/logical notions about such as "Higher and
> Higher and Higher Self," etc, without logical end),

Wry: Impartial self-observatiuon, as I have put it out here is an excercise.
A person will not do it forever, maybe for a few years. As there is more and
more of a pure, opinionless, impartial recording of myself as I am (the
physical body in manifestation, including emotions, thought, tensions etc.)
in present time, a different kind and quality of data will be recorded into
the functioning.

: > wouldn't there be some sense (as by way of interest, at
> least?) in somehow transcending, or in at least aspiring
> to transcend, certain kinds of merely logical, karmic,
> mayavic evaluations (re "forms of existence"?), to some
> extent, in favor of, say, some forms of intuitive (or even
> speculative ... ^:-) "evaluations" or somewhat
> esoteric/experiential experiences, maybe, in a sense, in
> some cases ..

Wry: It is very important to understand the difference between thought and
pure attention. Coventional thought, at least, which is what we are
basically dealing with here, functions by contrasting one thing against
another. The choice of what to contrast against what comes associatively,
out of ones previous experience. One could make the case that the choice to
make an impartial recording does also, but there is a difference, as this is
the parting of the waters of the red sea. Obviously a pure recording of
oneself in manifestation will yield a different result than analysis. I have
gotten the sense from reading your messages in the last year that you
believe that in contrast to butting ones head against the wall is the taking
a grand leap to liberation.. But basically, if you WILL yourself NOT to
pursue an ordinary means, this is still using an ordinary means. But this
understanding does not in itself lead to a parting of the waters, does it.
People realize this for a moment and then forget it for a few days or years.
Eventually, for a very few, results can be achieved in this way, if a person
keep pounding under controlled conditions. Perhaps they are members of a
very disciplined Zen community and sit etc. But why not practice sitting as
one is going about the processes of ordinary life? This is called Work..Of
course, regular life is not the same as sitting in a quiet room or garden.
It is important to sit when one is walking around, and eventually when your
competitor at work who is back-stabbing you and trying to get your job comes
into the room. No matter what we do, we will always eventually encounter the
conundrum where thought and attention intersect. It is the parting of the
waters. Thought eats attention. Attention gives rise to an alive
intelligence that functions under different rules then reactive, associative
thought. People do not know the nature of a reaction, It is anything, not
just feeling bad. Maybe there is something else that does not fall into this
catagory. and someday we will find out.

Because people confuse thought with attention and emotion with thought etc.
it is necessary to be very specific and demarcate very clearly the
boundaries of this exercise, so people do not confuse their regular self of
ordinary life with the impartial camera that is recording that. After this
phase of observation, which lasts a long time, comes something else. A
person will eventually have the data to make a specific change in himself
without either pouring from the empty into the void or doing great, even
irreparable damage to himself. If someone else says, "sense a certain spot
between the eyes" or whatever, he will know whether or not to do this and
how and why, as he will already have accumulated a vast "quantity
(quality)" of impartial data about himself, and maybe be able to make an
actual adjustment, that will not turn into its opposite the next time that
someone who looks like his mother when she was angry looks at him sideways.
He will not do an effort that will will program certain results into his
functioning at the wrong time, in the wrong way, along with cerrtain
tensions and interconnected patterns of disfunction that arealready
pre-existent in him, and then build upon this by subsequent efforts, in such
a way that any potential for a future balanced development is ultimatelyt
destroyed.

Anyway, this kind of exercise, not that Bill was necessarily doing it, is
not for everyone. But for those who are interested in investigating this
approach further and finding out if it makes any sense, the line of
questioning you have been pursuing seems to me to be very valuable, and I
personally am open to responding to this line of questioning and any further
such questioning that may arise for as long as is necessary.

Remember, what is evaluating the "watcher" of the "watcher" of the "watcher"
is not the watcher, at least not the impartial watcher, but the thinker or
evaluator. Actually, what you say about the watcher of the watcher is a very
interesting subject which I have gone into personally very deeply. What is
interesting is recording the moment when the watcher stops watching. In this
sense, there is a double watcher. In Mahayana Buddhism there is a two fold
ongoing process of mindfulness and then something else which is constantly
watching onself being mindful and notices when the mindfulness stops and
corrects that, but this is not quite the same. It is best to have a very
simple approach in the beginning (years), or people will get confused.

If anyone is interested in this approach I have outlined on several
occasions, it is best to start with a simple recording the body as it is
walking down the street or doing some simple motor activity. This approach,
in my opinion, is the single fastest way for a human being to develop, but
it is very slow. In this case, slow is fast. When the tempo of the
functionings begins to be harmonized, we will all understand. I do not know
if the nuance of all of this can be conveyed on an email list, but,
technically speaking, perhaps it is possible. If enough people are
interested, in a year or two I (we) can establish a phone community, which
is my specific area of interest, having studied this medium for many years,
but I doubt that many people who are interested in theosophy would be
attracted to this, so do not worry, Herm (the worm) Leon. You and Dallas
and Reed and whoever can have your own big society and we, whoever we are,
will have our own little one which will not interfere with you. Remember,
something impartial does not care if it records you or not, as it has no
opinion, but "I," the beginning of I, without quotation marks, want to
develop and all circumstances and situations are grist for the mill of this,
myself always being the object, not you. I put this out here to simply share
an approach I am very familar with, as some people might be interested.
Sincerely, Wry



>Not that some helpful clues aren't
> basically/logically available, obviously enough, in many
> ways, but if there are some "Theosophic types" (for
> example?) who might have some interest in
> transcending karma, well ... ^:-) ...
>
> Speculatively,
> Mauri
>
> PS I guess that was another shot at trying to find
> words that might "explain" something about what might
> be called the "basic differences" between "exoteric"
> and "esoteric/Occult." Not that we don't all "logically"
> know about such things.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>